Is Democracy the End of History?

After WWII and the Cold War, democracy looked unstoppable. Lately, it seems more complicated. Francis Fukuyama, Stanford's Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and the world’s leading author on the subject, joins us to discuss - could it still be true?
-
Support us on Patreon: / spectaclesmedia
Check out our sources: www.spectacles.news/mini-doc-...
Hang out in our Discord: / discord
-
In 1989, Francis Fukuyama - until then a fairly unknown functionary in the US State Department - published an article that started a firestorm of debate. The title, an unassumingly simple question: “The End of History?” Three years later, he followed up with a book, “The End of History and the Last Man,” an engaging, thoughtful, and far-too-often misunderstood work.
Fukuyama’s thesis, that liberal democracy is the natural conclusion of all human development, feels almost as strange as saying, “God is good,” when the world is yet filled with so much evil. Yet it is a crucially important idea, and today, though it faces serious challenges, feels like it could be seeing some vindication. So, we set about trying first to understand and then to explain these ideas. Thankfully, professor Fukuyama was gracious enough to join us, and so a very special thanks goes out to him for his help. Without him, this video may not have been possible.
-
* NOTE: We excluded the Rwandan genocide from the dataset, because it distorts the results and renders the chart difficult to read. However, it’s certainly an event worth noting, and if you’d like to see a graph with it present, check out our old article that partially inspired this video: www.spectacles.news/visualizi...
-
CHAPTERS
00:00 INTRODUCTION
01:45 I - THE WORLD STILL TURNS
04:00 II - LIBERALISM IS INEVITABLE
06:18 III - DEMOCRACY IS INEVITABLE
09:14 IV - LIBERAL DEMOCRACY TODAY

[@benmorgan1718]

FUK FUK FUK

[@spectacles-dm]

This guy gets it

[@holup977]

@@spectacles-dm lol

[@indetermite]

what?

[@alucard347]

​@@spectacles-dmI'm sorry, what?

[@Syvern.]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[@IMPERIALYT]

Fantastic video explaining the details of Fukuyama's philosophy for those who haven't read (like myself) much of his work. Incredible that you managed to get him on board for this too!

[@spectacles-dm]

Thank you so much - means a lot coming from you. Glad you enjoyed!

[@christopher9727]

... Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

[@tomm5663]

Very well made video. Fundamentally, I disagree, but I still appreciate you went to the effort of actually interviewing the man himself and explaining his claim properly.

[@spectacles-dm]

Cheers to that! Thanks for watching.

[@rafeorr7855]

There’s a concept in machine learning (sounds entirely unrelated, I’m getting there) where the algorithm will settle into a “local minima” where it’s good enough to work, but not necessarily the most optimal structure. I’m not sure what a more optimal structure would be, but I am pretty sure that liberal democracy is a very effective local minima that would be hard to break out of. In that sense, I agree with Fukuyama in that we’re very likely to remain in Liberal democracy for a long time, possibly forever, but I disagree in that it is the inevitable or only option.

[@mists_of_time]

Amazing video. I love how you didn't just slap the interview in the middle of the video, but you used it in a great way. This deserves to go viral!

[@spectacles-dm]

Hey, missed this comment, but thanks so much. Really appreciate the kind words. Didn't work out this time, but hopefully we'll get em with the next one!

[@henrikhaugen1457]

Don't really agree with this line of thinking, but it's really awesome that you properly covered the topic and interviewed the guy himself

[@sizor3ds]

how do you discuss the threats to democracy without talking about economic monpolies, oligarchies, and oil money think tanks? By far the largest threat to democracy is the consolidation of wealth in the hands of an increasingly smaller few. Monopolies and oligopolies destroy all the freedom of the free market and essentially replicate imperialism and centreal planning on their market segment. It's the antithesis of free and democratic. Then there's the idea of one person one vote. But when so much of your ability to win an election is based on financing a capaign, it turns one person one vote to one dollar one vote. And thats before you even consider lobbying and oil money funding think tanks to push policies favourable to business. What we're seeing with illiberal democracies isn't some weird Hungary only thing. There are tendancies in our systems of liberal democracies that are leading towards monopolies and far-right authoritarianism. I saw none of these issues mentioned. If anything, so long as the rich get richer, the only thing that inevitable is monopoly

[@ahmedshaharyarejaz9886]

Preach brother!

[@KaiserFranzJosefI]

So what you're saying is that Capitalism is fundamentally anti-democratic

[@chadthundercock4806]

That isn't a threat to democracy, that is democracy, also Orban is a liberal

[@bdv5676]

The role imperialism plays in sustaining Western democracy is also really understated.

[@alejandromaldonado6159]

Far Left authoritarianism is more a threat to Western countries than far right authoritarianism which only really exists in Russia and Belarus.

[@andrewtian6171]

For those who want additional elaboration on the state of liberalism today Fukuyama does have a new book out on that topic: liberalism and its discontents

[@excitableboy7031]

Fukuyama's completely off base about India and i dont blame him. English press for some reason presents India in a warped way. The reality is a bit too complicated for a youtube comment of course. But he's not right.

[@Kamome163]

Wow, this video is incredibly well made. I was just wondering about this topic and bob’s your uncle, spectacles came up with another great video💯

[@spectacles-dm]

Omg how kind! Thank you so much, Kamome. Very much looking forward to your next video :)

[@lughmanwatandust1020]

7:35 What kind of absolute bs was that Christianity gave the slaves human rights???? Where? When? In southern states? In Russia Brazil Dark ages??

[@perfectlyfine1675]

You see, it's not the egalitarian ideas of the enlightenment or the material conditions created by the industrial revolution. It's Christianity that liberated the slaves and serfs and peasants. Why did it take Christianity 1800 years to finally have its effect?.. stop. You're thinking too much.

[@Random_Panda_eating_cake]

Misunderstanding, it gave the "Slaves" (IE, peasnts, serfs, not actual slaves, Maybe even just commoners) the WANTING to have Recognition

[@AzuroTemplar]

Ngl, i dissed on Francis's idea of end history without reading his book; purely from what i've heard from other people on the media. Guess this is a harsh lesson for me about taking information on face-value.

[@spectacles-dm]

And hey, don't just take our word for anything either! Read the article if you get the chance, or the book is very good. Ngl we decided to do this topic before either of us had read it bc we shot our shot to get an interview and it worked. When we did sit down to read, we were both stunned at how much more thoughtful the book was than even we expected!

[@brandtlucasbrandt]

You did better than me, I just straight up judged the book by the cover without hearing any arguments. I just saw "end of history" and my artistic brain just scoffed at another person who thought "only real history is military history" ignoring historical art.

[@lautaromonsalvo8808]

I don't agree to the proposition that liberal markets are strictly superior to everything else in every situation

[@dainomite]

Great video gents!! Thoroughly enjoyed it and that’s awesome you guys got Fukuyama for the video!!

[@spectacles-dm]

Thank you!

[@olusegunokubanjo]

Fukuyama appears to overlook the degree to which authoritarianism ultimately contributed to the West’s current state. He forgets that this status is predicated on the wholesale exploitation and suppression of a significant portion of humanity, a humanity that has been denied these privileges for themselves. These celebrated societies are systems in which for most of their existence, the majority of their internal populations were barred from participating in democracy through rules designed by the autocrats who held power and remain shut out from equal economic participation. Many are essentially surfs - wage tied to large corporations that increasingly take on the appearance of feudal over lords. We are asked to consider celebrating systems and societies which practice limited economic liberalism and a controlled form of democracy at home, but primarily express themselves through economic authoritarianism and violence almost everywhere else. This embedded hypocrisy is why so many are lining up to join alternative organisations like the BRICS, the BRI and the New Development Bank. It explains why so many people are fleeing the unfair economic conditions imposed on the global south to participate in the privileges enjoyed in the West. This is also why these western societies repeatedly relapse into “right-wing populism” or autocratism-lite. They know that this cannot last and with each advancement of the rest of humanity, fear the loss of privilege. In truth, economic authoritarianism is the primary system of government over the majority of humanity, sometimes cloaked within democracy itself. For many in the global South, the question is what value is a vote or freedom of expression, when we cannot eat and have no where to live? If history has ended, it has ended thus, not a celebration of the triumph of human dignity, but the triumph of raw unlimited power.

[@haadkhan140]

👍🏽💯

[@kylepugh6607]

Concise and incisive. I appreciate this

[@Marqan]

You're almost onto something, but you go too far. One problem is that you can't even provide a better alternative to this "economic authoritarianism". It's definitely not worse than anything before. In a previous system the global south would be colonies, before that they would've been slaves, and before that they would've been just erradicated and their valuable lands populated with westerners. BRICS is not even an attempt to fix what you perceive as problems, it simply wants to replace what you see as a liberal democratic economic authority, with a less liberal and less democratic economic authority, that would likely be more oppressive. All you have to do is look at how Russia and China treat their neighbours, and especially their own citizens. They clearly don't have good intentions. This demonization of global north just gets ridiculous at points. People assign more responsibility to western governments and citizens to take care of e.g. african citizens, than they do to african governments. It is not the US governmets' or german citizens' job to take care of a sudanese citizens. You completely conflate individual human flaws with having a bad system. Again, all you have to do is compare liberal democracies to literally anything else. As for Fukuyama, I think he simply just forgot to factor in capitalism, and the different forms it can manifest in different countries. At least that wasn't mentioned in the video at all. And I also think most of your criticism applies more to capitalism, rather than liberal democarcy itself. Indeed capitalist systems can be abused to the detriment of the citizens. However capitalism can be moderated, and that does help. You can see that China often has an aboslutely chaotic form of it where in some places you get government regulated prices, while in other areas you get hyper-capitalism in which citizens are completely exploited by richer individuals. In the US it's much better, but companies are still allowed to, and successfully lobby against the well-being and interests of US citizens, just to make more money that they don't even need. Western and northern EU countries do a much better job at regulating capitalism, so that it's for the people, not just for the rich. Liberal democarcies evidently do better. It's not a mindless celebration, it's not some fanatical zeal, it's just that we don't have anything better. Any criticism you bring up for the current western system is true multiple times for any other currently existing one. The reason I think that's wrong, because you're seemingly simply against the current system, instead of being for improving it. I think a huge issue, where a lot of the criticism stems from, is that people look at the US as the pinnacle of capitalism or liberal democracy, while that's FAR from the truth. Look at Denmark, Sweden, Holland, even Germany. Those governments take care of their citizens, and the citizens (so far) keep their governments in check.

[@olusegunokubanjo]

@@MarqanThank you for your comments. They touch on quite a few deeper points which I will address. However because of the length of my reply, I will respond in sections.

[@olusegunokubanjo]

@@Marqan 1/5 - I am not simply against the current system. My earlier comments pointed out the hubris and shallowness of Fukuyama’s assertion that the political and economic system of the Western Countries, led by the US (which he called Liberal Democracy) is the best system humans have discovered for organising their societies. He extrapolated this from the fall of the USSR and the retreat from their political and economic system (which they called Socialism) and the subsequent increase in states using similar systems in which the appellation “Democracy” could be applied. I pointed out that this perspective seems to almost deliberately miss how this western-style political order could only exist because of of the subsisting western-dominated economic order, which itself was the result of a previous state of effective internal autocracy within these western states, which was gradually reduced internally (but often not totally eliminated) while concurrently increased aggressively in non-metropolitan territories that these states controlled and dominated. The domination continues today, partly due to the historical imbalances caused by past economic autocracy (making the western states vastly larger in trade power than the Global South) and partly through direct action (Invasions, Wars, Coups/Regime Change, Sanctions, and so on). It is this system of Economic Autocracy that truly dominates humanity and is truly the societal system in which most of humanity lives. Fukuyama’s description only applies to the very small proportion of humanity who can enjoy the perception of greater political and economic liberalism within the western states, which is only possible by the holding back and exploiting of the majority of humanity. I further pointed out that even within these western societies, substantial portions of their populations are victims of growing economic autocracy within their economies. Put more literally: Children in the west can enjoy “Belgian chocolate”, a widely available, affordable treat because of the amazing economic and human potential unleashed by a Capitalist Liberal Democracy. What is missing from this story is the farmer in Ghana who is forced to grow cocoa (chocolates key ingredient) and sell it for almost nothing. This is “free trade” we say, but that farmer is forced to grow cocoa, because his ancestors lost a war of invasion, suffered mass depopulation, as people were killed or transported to other continents, lived under occupation for generations during which they were forced to grow “cash crops” like cocoa in order to generate money to pay taxes raised in the occupier’s currency. The western created and run “colony” was deliberately kept de-industrialised and at eventual independence, the institutions (the World Bank, IMF, IBRD, etc) set up as successors to the Marshall Plan and designed ostensively to support these new countries to build up and industrialise (having successfully rebuilt and reindustrialised Europe) ended up guiding them into to deeper delays to industrialisation and a deeper dependence on “cash crops” to pay and service “hard currency loans”. The net result is the modern Ghanaian cocoa farmer almost never has eaten “Belgian chocolate” and remains on the brink of poverty in order to keep the price of cocoa, and by extension the price of chocolate low. One cannot celebrate the affordability and ubiquity of chocolate in the west, without recognising that it is the result of the economic exploitation of people in the Global South. These societies cannot simply push to increase prices, because when they do, they face economic ruin, political isolation and ultimately the imposition of new regimes more amenable to keeping cocoa prices low and the chocolate flowing. So they are forced to make and accept very incremental changes or face immediate punishment - as exemplified in the student credit downgrade Ghana received (despite having no issues with it’s debt payments) crippling the economy and unleashing and economic crisis, which necessitated more World Bank loans. Loans that came with conditions which will reduce the quality of life in Ghana. What did they do that warranted such punishment? They tried to create a “Cocoa OPEC” along side Côte D’Ivoire. Any criticism of Capitalism and the political systems practiced by Western Countries is often interpreted as an automatic suggestion or espousal of its perceived diametric opposite “Communism”. However, this knee jerk reaction may be programmed into us by our society. Let’s actually examine the criticism and ask ourselves “Could Capitalism be better? Could our political system be better? What changes can we realistically make to improve them?

[@otis3744]

i love the wests point of view, you speak of china as if its an anomaly and truth be told the west is the actual glitch in the scatter plot, liberal democracy isnt the apex of human society and democracy and freedom arnt necessarily equivalent . case in point aparthied south africa, clearly democratic but not a free society, liberalism isnt a fix for human problems

[@eve_avery]

Only the white minority were allowed to vote in Apartheid South Africa, that situation is not usually referred to as being democratic

[@MrOnay-px1jx]

i wouldnt call any european country free to be honest

[@eve_avery]

@@MrOnay-px1jx For curiosity's sake, are there any extant countries you consider free?

[@MrOnay-px1jx]

@@eve_avery nope. America probably gives its citizens the most agency with freedom of speech laws and the whole constitutional but rights have been eroding in the us for a long time

[@Rwandrall01]

An absolute gem of a video and channel, you’ve gained one more sub !

[@christiana.1204]

Your channel is criminally underrated. I'm a big fan of your work and a long-time subscriber. Great work on this one. As an IR scholar, I am amazed by how you succinctly explained End of History. Also it's great that you got to interview Fukuyama.

[@spectacles-dm]

Wow, thank you so much! Really happy you think we're doing a good job staying accurate on the more academic stuff - we try, but 10-15min videos have their obstacles!!

[@indetermite]

Agree completely. This channel deserves at least 300k subscribers.

[@levijackson767]

America's founding doucuments outlined the pinnacle of the Liberal Democracy model. Which we unfortunately moved further away from since the time of Linconl onward. Evermore enticed by the authoritarian trends of socialistic forms of economics and government. John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free." But we're currently live in a decadent degenerate miasma of self-worship. No wonder we're in such decline.

[@doujinflip]

It’s especially worst among the “religious”, who practice the most corrupted inconsiderate morals and get caught performing the most outrageous hypocrisies. There’s a reason religiosity has been dropping in all the advanced economies: organized faith fails to exemplify the very morals of its own dogma.

[@alejandromaldonado6159]

​@@doujinflipLol no. It's the opposite. Increasing decadence, hedonism, corruption, and social decay is the direct result of increasing socialism in liberal democracies. Increasing authoritarianism, expansion of bureaucracy in government, and concentration of wealth by the few is the direct result of moving away from morals and values of a religious society.

[@perfectlyfine1675]

Lincoln was of course the authoritarian. It was very liberal, enlightened and democratic to enslave millions of people.

[@epicphailure88]

@@alejandromaldonado6159 There is no socialism in liberal democracies. Concentrated wealth in the hands of a few is a bug not a feature of capitalism. Hedonism and social decay is a result of the ruling class trying to numb and distract the masses. Alos religion is dead. You cant go back to a religious society. You cant make people believe in something that there is no proof of.

[@finnturner4554]

@@alejandromaldonado6159 But the nordic countries are less religious and have less income inequality which is contrary (at the very least not supportive) to your point that wealth in the hands of the few is a result of deviation from religious values. Additionally, looking at history we see the dark ages was the most hyper religious time (also being a horrible time to live in a lot of ways).

[@Arturino_Burachelini]

IDK, I use Fukuyama's books as a stand for my nebulazer whenever my asthma combines with some virus into a bronchitis... The history of conflicts between individuals and societies (not some democratic curfaffle) has never begun (no trace of such) and will never end.

[@marcoblo2489]

Toujours incroyable ! Merci !

[@charlesbrain6220]

Was surprised at first, but it makes so much sense thinking about it after watching the video

[@KamepinUA]

Really good explanation of Fukuyama's work, I learned a lot myself!

[@spectacles-dm]

Thank you so much! Glad you learned something :)

[@silenthawkstudios9924]

Everyone since the dawn of mankind has felt like they were living at the end of history... yet they never were.

[@olusegunokubanjo]

Great video, very stimulating subject. However, Fukuyama’s analysis (and Spectacles) is founded on the journey that so called western civilisation took to arrive at its current economic and political state. I am Yoruba. Before the europeans came to my ancestral lands, we had a high advanced and mature from of government which today would be called a liberal democracy. Our leaders (initially called “presidents” but later christened “kings” by the europeans in their languages) were elected and removable, we had established assemblies through which laws were made and we had a system of independent courts. These systems were completely crushed by waves of mercenaries intent on plunder for the benefit of their home states (purportedly liberal democracies). Our leaders who resisted, were killed or exiled and our lands were carved up between various competing, but allied, european states. They ruled our populations without representation and against popular resistance, ultimately surrendering political power to us in structures that they dictated and designed to fail. We are still working today to unravel the chaos left in their wake. Our liberal democracies were destroyed by externally imposed authoritarian systems which still affect our society today. Ultimately, those who have power must be willing or required to share it, in order for a true democracy to exist. We have struggled for decades to modernise and develop our societies, without the advantage of primitive accumulation through the exploitation of others and have found this to be a sisyphean task.

[@KomradeComa]

The tribes / states that used to make up the present day geographical region of Nigeria were all subjugated by authoritarian regimes - the UK never allowed anyone but rich white landowners to vote until 1886, and even then the working class was probably not adequately represented until 1900. Colonialism was very much a project of the rich landowning class of Europe; and to say that they benefitted the 'purportedly liberal democracies' is an abject misrepresentation of history. British Imperialism benefitted solely the elite and their illiberal regimes, and when the Industrial Revolution picked up it began to quickly become clear to the elites that they either conceded some 'dignity' to the rest of the population or they would be facing the same fate as Marie Antoinette. For what it's worth, imperial African empires like the Oyo in Nigeria also existed; and they took slaves, conquered, looted and occupied just as any feudal power structure did.

[@olusegunokubanjo]

@@KomradeComa Interesting points. My apologies in advance for the long answer, but I felt you deserved a proportionate response. In Nigeria, the main beneficiaries were working class, ex-military europeans who were trying to escape their class boundaries and transition to the upper class. They became wealthy landowners in Europe, after they had amassed fortunes in the colonies, not before. A notable example is Frederick (later Lord) Lugard. Working class europeans also benefitted indirectly from the raw materials, lubricants and pre-processed materials extracted to supply their national needs at cut-rate prices and to later fuel what became the (mainly UK based) Industrial Revolution. Working class europeans continued to benefit through cheaper goods, more jobs and higher wages (though they did have to struggle with their elites for this). These accumulated advantages helped create the economic environment in which european liberal and social democracies exist. Without the gross exploitation of Africa, european feudalism would probably not have ended when it did and the emergence of so-called liberal democracy would have been significantly delayed. In the Americas, “working or surf classes” were created and restrained in those classes through legally defined and enforced barriers. This allowed such countries to open up to progressively larger portions of their erstwhile working classes, moving them into the new category of “middle class” with no disruptions to their society because of the calcified, immobile lower rung. It is preposterous to call such societies liberal or democratic when these fixed lower classes existed with the force of law until the 1960s. Despite considerable changes since then, these structures effectively still exist. To put it in practical terms, despite over 2 centuries of European colonisation, Nigeria at independence, in 1960, had grand total of 1 western style university (founded hurriedly in 1948 in preparation of independence) that had the capacity to produce 200 graduates a year for population of then 50 million people. Nigeria had almost no mechanised industries in 1960, as successive colonial administrations had banned any industrialisation until pre-independence self rule in 1953. Through colonialism, Nigeria was essentially held in a preindustrial state to be a source of raw materials to British factories and a market to consume their finished goods. The practise of referring to African ethnic groups as “tribes” was a reductive practice begun by europeans to minimise the significance and ultimately the humanity of the peoples they encountered. My ethnic group for example has a larger population than Scotland and a longer recorded history of high civilisation. Furthermore, at european contact, most of the peoples in Nigeria were already organised into states with long and well established cultural, political, economic and military systems, which the early europeans heavily documented. These states were so well organised, the British retained them and governed through them for the majority of their occupation of these lands in a system known as indirect-rule. If we do not refer to the Greeks, Scots, Welsh, Flemish, Irish, Basques or Swedes as “tribes”, we should not refer to the much larger ethnic groups in Nigeria as such. If Oyo had been able to accrue the advantages of European-style empire, through the extreme, near total exploitation of other larger, far flung nations, and maintain these gains up to the present, then perhaps they too would today be considered by Fukuyama an exemplar of “liberal democracy”. But no Yoruba state considered complete exploitation of other nations and entire peoples to resemble a path to “progress”. In any case they were too busy fighting for the continued survival of their tributary empire. As it collapsed, Ibadan (a military republic) rose to replace it with a system of direct rule, but failing to sustain this, ultimately itself fell to civil wars. My home, the Ijebu Kingdom, was a democratic republic, and never a part of the Oyo empire. It successfully resisted the British until it fell through military invasion. All of these states were democratic and nothing like the European concept of feudalism existed. Our people were never tied to lands under wealthy landowners until the Europeans arrived. Before european contact and their subsequent massive demand, the enslavement of persons in Yoruba states used primarily as a way to deal with war captives and criminals. Our system of warfare was designed to minimise casualties and we did not keep prisons but instead embedded such captives within victor’s families. After a period, the vast majority of these people would be freed and allowed to return home, or would be integrated into the victor’s community and adopted by their host family without stigma, often intermarrying with them. Many of our heroes, rulers and philosophers were the product of this process. This is quite different from the system of chattel slavery operated by Europeans, which locked people in a permanent under class as sub-humans and contributed to the collapse of our institutions, required the relocation of our cities (away from the coasts), deprived us of generations of our brightest and best and only ended, when it became more lucrative to keep West Africans on plantations in Africa to fuel the emerging Industrial Revolution. However, the point is not to conduct a comparative discussion of the morality of societies long gone, but to observe that the current societies Fukuyama posits as “ending history” are actually not the societies he thinks they are, rather they are, at best, victor’s paradises and, on average, false-utopias undergirded by mass-dystopia. The end of history will be achieved when (1) all human societies are able to provide standards of living compatible with full human dignity without the ongoing mass exploitation of others, (2) all people can hold their governments accountable and (3) all governments are willing and able to act in their citizens best interests, but also in the best interests of all humanity, free of external domination and oppression by other states. We cannot say this of the current system he celebrates.

[@KomradeComa]

@@olusegunokubanjo Eye-opening. Thank you for the insight and I appreciate your response. I'm someone who comes from a country colonized by the British (in a different form, I suppose, from African colonialism) but the level of exploitation of the African continent by European powers is definitely not something I want to minimize. The 'tribes' point was interesting too; and something I'll definitely keep in mind from now on!

[@Manas-co8wl]

Intresting. I've been partial with native Yoruba culture and religion, whose ideas already seemed surprisingly modern to me. It's intriguing that they even had an electorial governmental system of their own, but not too surprising considering the nature of your philosophies. I am sorry for what your ancestors went through. It does put things into perspective again. Thank you for sharing.

[@jfltech]

I'm listening to Fukuyama's "Origins of political order" audiobook and man it's great.. it breaks down how our current political systems came to be from East to West

[@spectacles-dm]

He is something else! Far smarter than people think

[@InfamousAustinT0]

Gonna have to give that one a listen.

[@vascofernandes295]

5:12 First problem: artificial scarcity messes up the rule of supply and demand Also, capitalism has people who don't do shit other then having their name on a peice of paper, and encourages that. 5:40 Problem two: the market economy, due in part to first problem, focuses abundance on the rich, and the poor don't get abundance. 7:01 Now THIS also undercuts capitalism: people want to be recognised for what they work, and don't want the guy who doen't do shit(the guy who's only job is having a name on a peice of paper) to be the ones recognised for the work. 9:47 Well, about communism, WHY DOES THE US SPEND SO MUCH ON STOPPING IT IF IT ALWAYS FAILS? 10:03 Or the corpos in every capitalist country.

[@PropagandaInc.-te7yv]

This guy is a propagandist. I wouldn't take him too serisously.

[@TheLeftPath]

The problem with liberal democracy is that it fails to represent the interests of the people who have voted for their representatives. Instead these interests are undermined by the interests of the capital owners who use lobbying to buy themselves legislation to use the law not just to protect their interests but to strenghten it. This eventually leads to the worsening of the material conditions of the working class, growing gaps between rich and poor. This whole process erodes liberal democracy and produces those destrucive populist elements who at the end of the day are just an extension of the interests of the extractative forces. I think that implementing an imperative mandate on elected representatives would improve a lot of things. It would mean that those mandates would have to justify themeselves regularly in front of their elected people (more specific their voting district), in shorter cycles than general elections would occur. It would also give the voters the opportunity to strip them off their mandates if those would fail to represents their interests. But for this to work a political consciousness would be necessary to be built which is barely there precisely because the interests and material needs of the general populations are not being satisfied and they feel like being left aside. It's also the political party system and how they function that is uninviting for most people because their members usually just repeat the same phrases and their party elections usually resemble relection results of north Korea rather than genuine discussion.

[@Volition1001]

Great video! Do you edit these yourself?

[@spectacles-dm]

Thank you! You bet! There's two of us sharing the work.

[@pmrpla]

It's a bit more complicated than that, liberal democracies (mainly the west) are no saints and pursue their goals, basically to maintain their way of life (resources), by corrupting or changing other regimes, democratic or not. As others are more evil it's not complicated to portray them as saints anyway. I understand this channel is about democracy, and yes, I still believe that's the better system available at this time but recognition and material needs are not its exclusive. We never know what the future holds and IMHO Fukuyama is a broken clock that's only right two times a day. I also don't think christianism was a driving factor worldwide, that's another "western exceptionalism". Things have changed in past, things will change in the future. History will end when all resources are depleted.

[@allloger]

I tought this channel was a 5 million subscriber news channel or something the quality of the content is insane

[@platinumsun4632]

Say if you don’t mind me asking. What Fraktur font did you use? I like collecting them. At 3:48

[@spectacles-dm]

can't remember, but I was copying designs from the tabletop game "Secret Hitler" as a sort of reference. Fun game. Maybe google "Secret Hitler font," and you'll come up with something. That sounds like a prank but it's not lmao.

[@platinumsun4632]

@@spectacles-dm oh very tasteful, As in images of the box or the digital edition?

[@thePacMan1924]

Great video as always. I'm wondering if soley looking to the behavior of nation states for alternatives to liberal democracy might pose a limited perspective. Other forms of democracy such as stateless or direct democracies would occur at hyper local levels without reliance on the state. I'm thinking of mutual aid efforts, other kinds of community based institutions or even autonomous regions.

[@spectacles-dm]

Fukuyama discusses this in the book - the basics: liberalism occurs because of its ability to provide abundance; the same natural desires that crave abundance will seek an expansion of their political sphere so as to have more resources to extract and refine; liberalism, by its provision of abundance (particularly industrial) will win any fight with non-state forms of political organization. His argument is more nuanced, and that's off the top of my head as I remember it. If this questions interests you in general, though, you'd enjoy the book.

[@The_Midnight_Bear]

Yeah, those are nsrely relevant.

[@retardo-qo4uj]

Bigger is stronger, simple answer. Multiple smaller can create alliance, but their decision will be slower than the bigger

[@goddepersonno3782]

Fukuyama's worldview, even his criteria, are fundamentally western and secular in nature. I would disagree that the desire of all mankind is to be recognised. In many states (especially Russia, but every democratic state also), the average person doesn't care about politics or desires to make themselves known. This desire in itself is a cultural trait, not inherent. There will always be the few that desire to be known and recognised. These are the people who change the world, conquer nations, reform governments, and commit acts of supreme cruelty. But I see no evidence throughout history that all people fundamentally desire this political, social, or even economic recognition. Not to mention, every democracy is a limited democracy. The people do not vote on every bill and social issue, but elect representatives. And this is what gives rise to many cynical interpretations of representative democracy. You create a new ruling class - one that fluctuates, certainly, but you are elevating individuals above their peers and giving them greater control and influence. It is a story as common as breathing itself to hear elected representatives voting against the interests of their electorate. But let's think about the alternative, what if everyone voted on every political bill? It's not impossible with our modern technology. What would happen? Utter ignorance and terrible decision making. Our society would be in shambles because the average person doesn't have the time or investment to learn about every bill being proposed in parliament. And if they did, I don't even think they would vote in their own interests. It would instead become a competition of populism and partisan discrimination just like we are already with representative elections. How could this be the ideal society? Material needs would no longer be met. humanity is so much more complicated that we can imagine, very much because of how strong and ingrained our worldviews are. Fukuyama could not even imagine some of the fundamental principles and desires that other cultures possess, as they are so alien to a liberal democratic worldview. He cannot help but view societal progress in materialist terms, because a materialist cannot imagine anything else being relevant. And that's why liberal democracy isn't the end of history. History is far to complicated for society to "peak" truly and objectively at any point. Instead the "end of history" is a western mythology by which we define and understand ourselves. In this respect it is fascinating.

[@Dampy.69]

When your great grandchildren will fight wars over limited resources and starve due to a lack of food security brought on by extreme weather phenomena, then so too will liberal democracy have it's end.

[@MBP1918]

Interesting

[@quinnodonnell3906]

This is a well put together video. I have a point to make though about fukuyama's idea... How is it that the material needs producing the inevitable conclusion towards market economy, and the immaterial needs producing democracy, are separate forces with separate out comes? I would think that if those were innate drives, wouldn't that make us desire for democratic markets? Material democracy? I think this points towards an inevitable trajectory towards democratic socialism... not liberal freemarket economy. Great video though, I've just always had that bone to pick with fukuyamas theory. I'm not sure how those two historic drives remain separate.

[@alanOHALAN]

Karl Marx predicted that capitalism cannot prevent its own financial crisis-es and will ultimately cave in on its own from a big enough financial crisis in the distant future. It is not the political system that matters, but the economic system. The liberal democracy with its invisible hand simply cannot control financial crisis.

[@ulightronx4259]

I really like this video. I think the fact that you’re even asking this question at all is a really good start. I think one thing that I would add is that the natural path of capitalism (liberal democracy) when threatened is to turn to right-wing regimes, so it’s not like our rights are being threatened from without, rather it is the owning class attempting to justify their exploitation and prevent the status quo from changing. Another thing I would like to add is that immaterial conditions are only possible with material conditions (i.e: Hunter gatherers had to fulfill the first 5 levels of maslow’s hierarchy in order to create art to begin with) and that we can shift how immaterial conditions are expressed by changing material conditions, especially for people who are providing labor for the capitalist class.

[@RudeFoxALTON]

I think this video while slick fails to answer the question: if liberal democracy is so great at meeting human needs, why is it under threat globally from parties and demagogues who are hostile to at least the democracy bit? You would have done well to actually include some critiques of liberal democracy and capitalism its economic engine. Such as the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. As it is, it's basically just a propaganda video cheerleading liberal democracy as society decays around us.

[@ultimategamer876]

Every day this video is more and more true....

[@Toporzel.]

European Union is an Autocracy.

[@matthiasknutzen6061]

7:38 Christianity was pro slavery for like 1700 -1800 years though??

[@Random_Panda_eating_cake]

Your misunderstanding what hes meaning by slave, hes meaning commoners or Peasents not actual slaves. and It made the Slaves WANT to have human rights didnt give it to them

[@patrickvernon4766]

It’s the end of a people who stick with it

[@legoboy468]

I think the future lies not in liberal democracy, but in some form of market socialism: for exactly the reasons Fukuyama describes. Market socialism within a democratic governing framework gives people recognition not just in their political life but in their economic one too. Co-ops also seems to have better economic outcomes than traditional top-down firms. People want the things Fukuyama talked about, but that’s not limited to the government. People want recognition from their community and their work and their friends, and ultimately capitalism will never be able to provide recognition in the workplace where people spend half their life.

[@Kyryyn_Lyyh]

Market socialism is just capitalism with extra steps.

[@legoboy468]

@@Kyryyn_Lyyh not really. Everything is owned collectively by the workers, while in capitalism it’s owned by private individuals. They just both have a market. But that’s not unique to capitalism

[@SomasAcademy]

Agreed; Fukuyama's arguments as summarized in this video basically suggest a tendency toward a flattening of political and economic hierarchies and a reduction in centralization, but while Liberalism is clearly less hierarchical and centralized than the politically authoritarian and economically centralized alternatives discussed in this video, it's far from the least hierarchical and most decentralized system possible. In the future, I think our descendants will look back on modern Liberal Democracy the same way we look back on Mercantilist Constitutional Monarchy; a start in the right direction, but only a halfway point in a longer transition.

[@quinnodonnell3906]

​@SomasAcademy well said, these are exactly my thoughts as well.... The building blocks to fukuyama's theories I don't have a problem with... but the conclusion that liberalism- the system we have now- is the end point? The conclusion? That I don't buy. If we desire secure material needs, and we desire recognition.... how is it that we would inevitably come to capitalism- an undemocratic economic management system that very unevenly distributes resources based on property ownership and not talent or work. The inevitable future must be some kind of democratic or libertarian socialism... not liberal capitalism..... eventually the people will demand more from this system.

[@morisan42]

This exactly, liberal democracy doesn't really satisfy the need for "recognition" in my eyes, as many people feel that their work is demeaning and not something they have genuine influence over. The first attempt to solve that problem was the organized labour movement, but corporations have been effective at union busting and lobbying government to introduce legislation curbing the power of unions. While the owners of corporations and their workers belong to a different class, there is an inherent power balance between the two, and workers can never have that "recognition", as Fukuyama calls it, be met. Liberalism solves the issue of the inherent power imbalance between a state and its citizens by having the heads of that state elected by its citizens, but stops short by leaving industry in private hands. State power is not the only form of power, and I think most people feel more oppressed by their employers than any oppression they may fear from the state.

[@u-mos8820]

This really deserves more views, I think I understand why it probably wasn't promoted though. It's too truthful, too bright, too horrible for many to look at directly. Human nature is personally one of the most interesting subjects to ponder, but for the majority of people I'd guess it just makes them uncomfortable or defensive.

[@eve_avery]

There's a lot I feel is wrong with this idea and video but this line is probably the worst: "There just isn't anything out there today that looks better than liberal democracy." This is due to a serious lack of imagination that doesn't stretch beyond systems that are not currently operated by extant nation states. I've been enjoying the videos on this channel, but this video and your comments in defense of this idea make me question how good the analysis in the rest of them have been.

[@bdv5676]

Mark Fischer's Capitalist Realism looms large over this video.

[@quinnodonnell3906]

​@@bdv5676absolutely right.

[@Mysticist]

I think he’s mostly right. I think democracy is definitely fundamental but that Liberalism and Socialism must be blended somehow to prevent the excesses of either. A market society where the state controls some key resources to at least some extent and workers have power instead of stockholders. This is because democracy has to be present not just in government but in business as well for both tangible and intangible needs. This way CEOs and others would be elected by the workers instead of economic dictators. They would then balance the greater needs of the company (to keep people employed) and the direct needs of the workers.

[@chrisgarbutt1893]

I fully agree with you that a blend of liberalism and socialism is necessary. I wish more people and politicians would take that direction instead of populism. Workplace democracy and an economic bill of rights would be an enormous step for world democracy.

[@gicking3898]

The best form of government which fulfils all the criteria ...shelter, food, the idea that all people matter, imho, is not Liberal democracy, or any democracy. It's a benevolent dictator. There is 1 example to prove this. Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew. Sadly, I can't think of a single example other than this, so while I'm honored to see his results, I'm saddened to think this is a one in 500,000 year event Democracy is simply the best of the worst forms. Another ideal might be democracy, but only where caring, intelligent, informed people can vote. Pretty hard to choose those people though.

[@misosoppa3279]

How the f*** does this video have so few views? It's one of the best history videos I've ever seen, and with what's happening in China right now, I think Fukuyama is more and more right!

[@spectacles-dm]

boy how we wish we knew... thank you so much for the kind words! more on the way!

[@nromk]

well he's an outsider looking at China, I'm sure the Chinese would have their own silly ideas of US politics if we listened in closely, many people who have studied in China in Latin America don't really see this political crisis that Fukyama sees, and they think that China understands the West better than the West understands itself ... not to mention BRICS just expanded so clearly something is working, and vice president Cristian Fernandez has a really good track record of being right about a lot of things so clearly there's more to China than what the West is willing to believe.

[@user-gw4oz1rk3i]

Democracy is the end of history, we just need to aplly it to the economy, and move Beyond markets.

[@Marqan]

I'd say factoring in capitalism and how well it's moderated by governments is also an important factor.

[@lynox172]

In 1933 Germany was a Republic one year later the system was gone, some remained silent few cried most applauded. As Germany was set to go to greatness which would last a thousand years and which would bring strength and order into the chaos and end the corruption in the oligarchs „Democratic“ system. It was cold in Russia, the Months had drains their food, the Tsar the first system was gone and now there were elections, such was Oktober. A Man stood in St. Petersburg he said „ it was time for Russia to advance into the second stage of the revolution and to end the corrupt government“ and so Russian democracy died. „not by speeches and the decision of majority are the great questions of the Time decided, but by blood and iron.“ History is not a straight line, but it was written by the victors. „ no one asks the victor if he lied“ but the vanquished can’t defend himself. In a world we’re ideas, system and belief rival each other the end of history will always be the one how sacrifices the world for their idea. As so is the nature of Men to shape the world in their image.

[@nromk]

the issue is that we treat the economy like a super structure and not like ecosystem; no one can come in with a magical formula and fix any economy what we need to do is focus on economic crises and address areas where a crises could arise such as say the environment

[@gundulf5686]

So Fukuyama's take according to this channel is that we will always move towards more democracy with progression in other areas? But he also admits we see a tendency towards more autocracy at the moment? How could the genius fail to see the logical fallacy in his conclusion? He may as well say we always move towards autocracy if he, after all, does not deny social cycle theory. This just shows Fukuyama can not be taken seriously. Also, if people vote for "populists", aka parties that take political incorrect concerns seriously and undermine the powers of the establishment, how is that a threat to democracy like you state? The interests of the population, primarily the majority, is the essence of democracy. Established powers are just as likely to be a threat to democracy, which is seen whenever they try to squash political opponents like various "populists".

[@claytonmitchell8017]

I'm not one of those who enjoy riding Fukuyama into the ground over his thesis. My arguement is about liberal democracy as a whole. I don't believe it will be the end of history, just as the invention of the nation state wasn't or any other system. Everything is ephemeral. Humanity will develop some other system that we feel to be the non-plus-ultra of all political systems and the standard by which all others will be measured. Liberal democracy is not sufficient as an end result.

[@spectacles-dm]

Yeah maybe. Like we said, it's a little hubristic to predict the end of everything, but it's undoubtedly the best idea yet, and it's been kicking for a couple centuries and fended off some big opponents. It's special, for sure

[@WingkKong]

Democracy is just a system control by the rich

[@aluisious]

Russia stagnating in Ukraine is not history ending. That's rampantly stupid.

[@user-vh3lm3qo4t]

Conflating the political-economy of Neoliberal Capitalism with the idea of democracy is very telling.

[@sahilhossian8212]

Lore of Is Democracy the End of History? Momentum 100

[@merrymerryjerry6736]

I would argue that yes, the material desires do culminate in liberal markets, but, a. the immaterial desires are greater in the mind of most people b. those immaterial desires are not best satisfied by *liberal, universal* democracy, but instead by *identitarian, group-limited* democracy - along the lines of ancient Athens, Jacksonian America, apartheid South Africa, the Jim Crow South, modern Hungary, etc. - the urge to feel innately superior is not satisfied by liberal democracy (as liberal democracy rightly regards such an urge as evil), but this urge is perhaps the most powerful historical force. The numbers seem to fall in line around a 70-30 balance: 70% of the population is the in-group citizen, 30% is the out-group noncitizen. This balance keeps the identitarian party in power indefinitely among the citizenry through fear of the out-group (and therefore makes the economic policy of the party irrelevant, driving it towards cronyism), while the 30% subjugated are never large enough to overthrow the system, making such a government the most internally stable government possible - an incredibly scary proposition for all concerned with human rights. However, even this government is internally unstable, as the 30% will rightly feel the need to experience human rights and dignity, and will protest and rebel against such a regime, driving the dominant group either to acquiesce to the demands (which is becoming increasingly rare - illiberals have ceased to fear protests) or, ultimately, to eliminate the subjugated either entirely or partially. Thus, with no other factors, the "end of history" is a long cycle of: illiberal democracy -> genocide -> lack of a feared outgroup recreates competitive democracy -> a new ingroup-outgroup relation develops -> the ingroup identitarians gain control -> illiberal democracy -> repeat Notice I said "with no other factors" - conquest, war, political leaders that reject illiberal urges, advances in technology, these can all have delaying effects on this process - all save the last. Transhumanism and genetic modification have the power to mitigate the source of unsustainability in such a system: namely, that the subjugated noncitizens are humans too and want to be respected with the human rights and dignity they deserve. And so, the illiberals will genetically modify the subjugated to make them *desire* servitude. They will *domesticate* their fellow man. Thus, to imagine the end of history, take the Domination of the Draka, remove all administrative competence, but keep the horrid, genetically modified master and slave species and government type. Such a system is far more evil than Nazism or Stalinism - because in such a system, everyone within it will *desire* to perpetuate it and all the evils inherent in it, seeing them as the ultimate good, or as Utopia. Yet, it is Dystopia. It is also inevitable.

[@fischX]

Democracy was the ancient starting point for imperialism, kingdoms, dictatorships and empires... At the beginning of the mess was democracy

[@tezismith8795]

what are you talking about

[@fischX]

@@tezismith8795 I talk about greek city states and the Roman Republic - democracy is literally the political system at the beginning of history, European Kingdoms and feudalism evolved out of it.

[@tezismith8795]

@@fischX eurocentrism must cause actual brain rot. you do know there were other civilisations long before the Greeks, Romans, etc.? History most certainly did not start with the Greeks and the Romans.

[@tezismith8795]

does democracy really give recognition though? I thought it was consensus. does the market really give us material wealth? I thought it was labour. the end of history will come when the last empire's palace is flooded, burnt down, destroyed in a storm, or when the last staff member dies of heatstroke trying to get to work.

[@tezismith8795]

end of history comes when we run out of natural gas to produce the fertilisers billions of people rely on 🥴

[@fwenfwemer2145]

You'd love if this were the case...

[@StevenBrener]

Well thought out and presented

[@Robert399]

I still don't agree. I think there's always a swing back and forth between liberalism and authoritarianism, from our earliest tribal days. There doesn't mean there are no underlying changes (economics, globalisation, communications tech, etc. obviously have had big impacts) but I don't agree that liberalism or democracy are "inevitable". Democratic backsliding isn't just a blip, in history we've seen it last up to 1000s of years. P.S. The "second factor", "immaterial desires" covers all ideologies, not just those promoting dignity and wellbeing. It includes nationalism, religions and other demographic dividers; it includes supremacist & exclusionary ideologies; it includes greed-based ideologies. There's not reason to assume the former will win out. P.P.S. STRONGLY disagree with tying ^ to Christianity. It certainly _can_ be but non-Christian movements can promote them just as easily and Christian movements can suppress them. This feels so much like "the selective history of things I want to remember".

[@lafayettemoreira4423]

End of history as the marxist theory understood, was a joke from a japanese writer when gorbatschow capitulated 1991. History never ends, as long as human societies endure. Some found the expression - end of history, interesting?

[@johnchen4061]

Let us wait and see what actually is happening, and will happen, in China, rather than just looking at one single point in time!

[@1650th]

Happy I found your channel

[@arshbad1]

What minority rights are stripped in India ? Couldn't find anything on google .

[@ProdigiousUno]

The idea of democracy was influenced by christianity? Maybe I'm missing something but that doesn't sound right...

[@SomasAcademy]

It's not an entirely baseless claim, but I would definitely say it's a misinterpretation. Christian arguments for the equality of all people were indeed part of building the foundations of Enlightenment thinking in Europe, but they didn't make that thinking possible "for the first time," and there were also Christian arguments for strict hereditary hierarchies (the "divine right of kings" was a Christian justification for absolute monarchy, for example). Egalitarian ideologies were capable of developing across any number of cultural contexts - hence how we can find similar thinking in Ancient Greece, Persia, Mesoamerica, the Islamic world, and others - it just happens that in the case of the European Enlightenment (through which Liberal ideology developed), Christianity was a very powerful force in most people's lives, and they thus often grounded their arguments for egalitarianism in Christian rhetoric. Suggesting that these viewpoints purely grew out of Christianity is putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion.

[@willhebert576]

Bah. History only ends when launch keys start turning.

[@danielquinn1673]

I think class of civilizations is a far better built in fukuyama but the problem is with Yama he misses something Singapore some companies will gain more power than governments eventually save in the future there's a company that makes its own government gives people free markets healthcare and all that long as they work for the company and when they're trying to get all these plans would they take a company dictatorship over a democracy if they can get better democracy is good most of the knowing human nature I think some people would sacrifice freedom for comfort that's just human nature that's how most people are most people don't care about politics most people just want to get by and put bread

[@TheRealNickG]

7:18 Did you really just describe conquest as something that barbarians do that was in need of someone better and slavery as something that was perpetrated by heathens in need of Christian morality? You said "with the EXPLICIT idea that all men... have human dignity in the eyes of God". Absolutely untrue. That was a secular Enlightenment idea to come out of France. There were are few theologians and clergy that preached the idea, but it was in no way a cornerstone of the way that kings operated in Age of Absolutism. In fact we see the opposite. As slavery ramped up intentionally by Europeans and their colonies, we see a greater collection of apologists and religious propagandists justifying slavery with loose yet complex interpretations of the Bible. It wasn't until the Enlightenment that if you asked people why they were fighting, they would tell you "mah freedom" as an abstract concept meaning to protect a way of life directly attributed to the government beyond confiscating grain. For example, Napoleon started the idea of public education. People liked the idea and wanted the government to do more of that and so they were willing to fight for this new "modern" way of life..... or were willing to fight against it. But the point is that was the first period in history where we see that kind of thing.

[@spectacles-dm]

"with the EXPLICIT idea that all men... have human dignity in the eyes of God" is an entirely accurate representation of Christian scripture and theology, and it is what allowed Christianity to be the seedbed of the Enlightenment. The fact that it was a theology distorted by opportunistic and wicked people doesn't that this quote isn't what it was at its base. Or would you say that because people like Bin Laden said Islam justified terrorism and mass murder, then that's what Islam truly is? I sure wouldn't, but if you'd really go that far just to make some bizarre point, be my guest.

[@Deathshead419]

​@@spectacles-dm Wow you're actually doubling down on that absolutely bonkers lie. The notion that anyone could seriously think that human history was slave relationships until Christianity came along speaks of an absolute, total ignorance of history. Germanic people's had assemblies and a notion of freedmen, while the catholic church has been a tool for despotism since its inception. And that's scratching the surface. Instead of taking about the end of history, maybe you should study it? You might learn a thing or two...

[@PropagandaInc.-te7yv]

@@spectacles-dm No, the aforementioned guy is right. What you've said is patently untrue, and a straight up generalization of the multiple denominations of Christianity at the time. Not only that, but based on what you said, Christianity is why people not only fought against concepts like slavery and fought for determinism. You talk about distortion as if that doesn't matter. It certainly DOES matter that the base idea of Christianity that you've described only came to fruition through secularism. It also matters when talking about Islam. Religion doesn't exist in a bubble, and to look towards religion as the true spur behind liberal democracies is... weird, at best.

[@mistycloud4455]

A.G.I Will be man's last Invention

[@skidooshlayman12]

and then we get 1984 and Skynet

[@quakeknight9680]

So what if child fiddlers get recognition? I've seen plenty of them but they call themselfs "Minor Attracted Persons" and they want to be inclided into the LGBTIQ+ Democracy is good at giving everyone recognition, but the bad thing is that EVERYONE getts recognition

[@vernedavis]

hypothetically,if a country is rich 'cause they've a billion dollars,does it matter if they've a billion people or thousand??

[@ikleinit]

The alternative is a benevolent kingdom.. where the pure heart of the ruler is connected to the pure heart of the people. This is the Torah concept. If you unpack that. You will see that until the heart is pure the false god of democracy is more a facade than reality

[@MERCYONEARTH24]

Totally agreed on that part of rising right-wing Popularism globally. We should not forget that Hitler rose to the helm of Germany by means of elections within the Weimar Constitution, of which he demolished wholy after his rise to power. So does that bring us to a conclusion elections are not effective against a well-disguised dictator. It's my utmost dilemma when it comes to Socialism with Chinese characteristics. Individually, I believe in Marxism(not Lenism nor Maoism). Maybe I am just an another Utopian Marxist.

[@rudysmith1552]

Utopianism never ends well in the real world. Your ideals are just ideals in till They prove their validity in the real world

[@MERCYONEARTH24]

@@rudysmith1552 An Utopist and an Utopian Marxist differs in every possible aspect bro. Ideals doesn't stand a place in real politika, but we still needs them because we would gradually become Machiavellian if we don't have anything we value utmost. Agree to disagree bro.

[@noneofmynameswork1]

The End of History and the Last Man

[@spectacles-dm]

That's right.

[@hector4303]

Fukuyama didn't come up with the idea of "end of history". It was already an idea held by people like hegel and marx just fukuyama repurposed it into neoliberalism

[@VodShod]

No it isn't the end of history, the system of democracy is used in too many situations where other systems would be better, and it isn't used in some situations where it is better than the currently used one. Each system, like democracy, capitalism, socialism and the like each have strengths and weaknesses, different places and use cases will have one which is preferred compared to a different location and use case. There is no such thing as a one size fits all perfectly.

[@plumlogan]

Russia declared what it wanted in Ukraine at the outset, and it got more than that. What kind of analysis is this?

[@hammer6198]

A liberal bible thumper! 😂😂😂

[@vernedavis]

look to countries that publish their rich&poor data&those countries that do not.

[@biteof78]

Poorly argued for thesis that disregards and dismisses important counterpoints. This is akin to propaganda seeking to glaze up Fukuyama, an incredibly problematic individual in his own right.

[@jono6472]

I see a lot ppl in the comment arguing about liberal democracy. The definition of liberalism is not about capitalism or socialism, it’s about individual autonomy, equality of opportunity, and the protection of individual rights. The only thing he said about the economy is that it will go towards whatever is the most efficient way to distribute resources to the masses which so far the most efficient way is indeed a free economy more or less. Socialist countries still have a free market economy where prices are generally set by supply and demand but just with government intervention. I think ppl these days look to far into the left right battle and forget the century old battle between authoritarianism vs liberalism. You can be far left or far right but a liberal democracy country will also be doing better in satisfying the need of the masses better then a authoritarian regime (Edit for spelling mistakes)

[@kuroazrem5376]

Human progress IS NOT inevitable, and neither is liberalism. In fact, liberalism is extremely fragile because it ignores a basic need of humans, connection with others, or, in other words, forming groups of like-minded or culturally similar peoples. Why is this a threat to liberalism you ask? For 2 reasons: 1. Groups will ALWAYS fight with each other to dominate them in order to secure resources, or simply because it's the nature of groups to fight. 2. Individual freedom, a pre-requisite for Liberal Democracy, is impossible within strong groups, in which the group's norms stifle individuality and turn the individual into a mere drone that acts for the overall benefit of the group, that is to say, of its leaders. Also, economic liberalism doesn't breed prosperity for everybody, but only for a small part of society, and when it does, people want more, leading to competition for finite resources and leading to the end of liberalism and the birth either of communism or corporatism.

[@user-gw4oz1rk3i]

Fukuyama was wrong. Liberal democracy Might soon be replaced by State capitalisim, and then a sosialist, fluid, and(at least partially) local democracy.

[@user-gw4oz1rk3i]

Liberal democracy is not inevitble, but comunisim Might be( or at least i hope so(see comment above for what is mean by “comunisim”)).

[@Koupip]

i like this video but some of the argument come off a lil silly, i'm pretty sure if you changed some word around you could frame the fall of the roman republic/empire as "the end of democracy bc we would always return to feudalism" you could even stretch it into saying that the big olygarch who live now are a new nobility and the aging politician who got where they are trough bureaucratie are just the new feudal lords bc everything always return to feudalism

[@kaanyasin3733]

The 21st century is the bad sequal that ruins the ending of the original

[@patharvard]

Let’s not be silly. Democracy exists only in very small communities, not in large nations. In large nations, including the U.S. and the E.U., wealthy and powerful financial, corporate, political, military and intelligence agency elites chose promote and fund political candidates who will obey their will and accomplish their strategic goals. Then, a handful of oligarch-approved candidates are placed before the electorate in a plebiscite. The elected politicians give their highly propagandized constituents only enough resources and opportunity to keep them from rebelling. The dynamics, described above, are present in all systems of national government. The most adept governments rule by indoctrination and sophisticated propaganda. The least adept, rule by crude propaganda, brute force and violent repression. Nonetheless, it is aristocracies that rule the people everywhere in the world.

[@docp92]

Fukuyama is like just another illustrated philosopher with totalitarian phantasies like Hegel and Plato. Haven't we learned already that anyone who just wants to do historical prediction, being a communist, a liberal democrat, etc. is just someone with totalitarian phantasies of social engineering that ignores the creative capacities of human beings?

[@dohminkonoha3200]

Democracy is dying rapidly in USA.

[@MrDude826]

I disagree, I think totalitarianism, war and genocide is inevitable. Not that I agree with it, but I understand why it happens and what drives the inevitable. lf you understand the basic concepts of what causes wars then you'll be able to see what happens before it happens. Democracy and totalitarianism is a cycle; a binary star.... The Ying and the Yang. This isn't the end of history but part of a cycle. Liberalism and conservatism are both in an eternal dance for dominance.

[@mvk4343]

Just as Jean Jaures noted in "Socialist History of the French Revolution": "But what must never be forgotten when judging these men is that the problems destiny imposed on them were formidable and probably beyond human strength. Perhaps it wasn’t possible for one generation alone to bring down the ancien régime, to create new laws and rights, to raise an enlightened and proud people from the depths of ignorance, poverty, and misery, to fight against a world-wide league of tyrants and slaves, and to put all passions and forces to use in this combat while ensuring the evolution of the fevered, overworked country towards normal order and regulated freedom. The France of the Revolution needed a century, countless trials, *backslidings into monarchy,* reawakenings of the republic, invasions, dismemberments, coups d'état, and civil wars before it finally arrived at the organization of the Republic, at the establishing of equal liberty through universal suffrage. The great workers of revolution and democracy who labored and fought more than a century ago are not accountable to us for a labor that could only be accomplished by several generations. To judge them as if they should have brought the drama to a close, as if history was not going to continue after them, is both childish and unjust. Their work was necessarily limited, but it was great. They affirmed the idea of democracy in its full amplitude. They gave the world the first example of a great country governing itself and saving itself through the might of the entire people. They gave the Revolution the magnificent prestige of the Idea and the necessary prestige of victory. And they gave France and the world so prodigious a momentum towards freedom that, despite reaction and eclipses, the new law definitively took possession of history." So too socialism has been temporarily defeated primarily in Eastern Europe and backslid into this "free" liberal "democracy" which has run roughshod over particularly the Balkans. For where my family is from (present-day Croatia), all major industries needed to be privatised in order to become a member of the EU. Youth unemployment rate is almost at 20% (and used to be a staggering 25%), thus many people leave for places like Germany (the hegemons of the EU), therefore contributing to the brain drain of the state. Just like in pre-SFRJ times, Croatia and other states are just semi-colonies of German/EU capital. Capitalism doesn't care about the world majority, this is why socialism was and still is a popular idea, especially outside the West, because many people in the Global South clearly see the hypocrisy.

[@mrsupremegascon]

Great video. Liberal democracy might be the stable point of a modern society. By the way nationalism like Modi's or Russian isn't incompatible with liberal democracy. In fact ethnic conflic in a multicultural society will always be greater in a democracy than in an autocratic regime. As autocratic regime tend to break down nationalist movement that are competitors to their power, while democracy left them unchecked. The current rise of far right and islamism in Western Europe is just the natural consequence of Western Europe becoming multicultural.

[@Toporzel.]

Liberal Democracy is killing Europe.

[@MedK001]

Dunno. The US _has been_ multicultural since its inception and the far right's rising in it too. The same goes for other countries who have always been defined by their multiculturalism, like Brazil The current trends related to the far right and stuff seem to me like they have more to do with the times we're in.

[@alejandromaldonado6159]

​@@MedK001Far Right rise is only and always a reactive response to Far Left -extremism. Fascism cannot exist without communism.

[@centercannothold]

@@MedK001 it was multicultural but the cultural difference was not really that great. Now we have to take into account ethnic and skin color, as well as modern technology means that you can't just ignore the culture you dislike. The difference is literally continent-wide.

[@lafayettemoreira4423]

Democracy is too broad a topic to be made as article of faith. And human societies not made of educated and litterate persons - as a rule.

[@miaomeow69]

7:45 Christianity?? It didn't do much until the French revolution.

[@stormstriker2000]

Modi's Nationalism is more built on anti muslim, and any man who has read last 1000 years of indian history, would say modi made a good choice. I want to see anyone disagree