Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Sunday, February 19, 2021

Francis Fukuyama is hardly the first author to have his concepts co-opted by unexpected circles. Still, despite his earlier disassociation with the neocons, I have to believe that his latest repudiation of the movement is as harsh as he can make it:

“The End of History,” in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like [William] Kristol and [Robert] Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

Regardless of the relative ideological neutrality of Leninism (its methods can be applied independently of economic system, as the Nazis and scores of other far-right regimes demonstrated), presenting a comparison with communism is enough to make the likes of Kristol and Kagan see, er, red. Even couched in Fukuyama’s clinic analysis, I’d say the gloves are fully off.

- Costa Tsiokos, Sun 02/19/2006 10:29:38 PM
Category: Political Theory | Permalink |

Trackback this entry: Right-click and copy link
Feedback »
Leave a comment


PLEASE NOTE: Various types of comment moderation may be triggered once you hit the "Say It!" button below. Common causes for this are the inclusion of several hyperlinks and/or spam words in the comment field. Please do not hit the "Say It!" button more than once. If you feel your comment is being blocked without cause, feel free to email me about it.