>>2647793>what he argued is that *once* material deprivation is fulfilled thymos will become the centrepoint of conflict. I know anon, this is why we were talking about Kojève, and not Fukuyama. For Kojève, recognition doesn't come "after" the material satisfaction, it exists all the time and is a core part of human life (in fact, it defines it)
Nonetheless, this is also a poor argument by Fukuyama. Derrida in Spectres of Marx talks about this : saying that market capitalism is the end of times because it satisfies material needs whilst millions die of hunger is a bit silly.
>thymos will become the centrepoint of conflictThat's also what Fukuyama gets wrong. Thymos isn't a thing per-se, it's something that exists as a medium to signify "this is injust/this is undignified" in relation to some structure or object. Thymos is inherently tied to the institutions. Ergo, if the material structure changes, then so does the recognition desires. I was actually surprised that this was the core of Fukuyama's argument, because it doesn't really contradicts marxism but rather ignores it. It ignores that material structure changes, which is the fundamental reason why people also change consciously (and thus have all kinds of perpetually different thymotic desires).
>where he disagreed with is with the traditional (vulgar) […]I haven't read his book in a while but isn't his claim that marx was an economism that only focused on the material satisfaction ?
>left unsaid in this disagreement is that you agreed with Fukuyama's framing of recognition between individualsI do, and I think that most marxists implicitly do. What causes the revolution isn't a necessary element, but the contingent expression of unsatisfied "thymos" and material conditions (which really englobe thymos anyway).