/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Ofc Marx's criticism against libs applied to Fukuyama as well, namely that the lack of antagonism in their models make it fit for everyone and everything and ultimately work for no one, but its kind of hilarious hearing lib leftists who are absolutely obsessed over their self identity constantly shitting on Fukuyama.

I am often concerned by that sort of phraseology from my anarchist and/or liberal friends. They're always going on about community and whatever. You're right that it basically boils down to an ultimately individualist worldview of individual empowerment to "be who you are" and shit like that.

devil's advocacy: there's nothing wrong with individualism per-se, the problem with capitalism is that it inadequately facilitates individualism. the problem with rightoid individualism is that it ultimately serves either capitalism or killeveryoneism. the problem with the modern left, and with contemporary individualism, is merely that it has not yet found a way to self-implement and, within fukuyama itself, not found a way to ensure isothymia triumphs over megalothymia (or, more prosaically, to ensure that megalothymia is channeled into inane things like becoming the best speedrunner, rather than becoming wealthier than god…)

>>2597722
Glad to see someone else recognize that lol. And you know what, i don't think it's that bad either. Fukuyama thinks that the "be who you are" model is the least bad model for everyone for a reason.

>>2597712
I prefer to think of the End of History as bourgeois society evolving norms and systems of control to thwart socialism and collective labor, only for the resulting society to be so atomized and over-mediated that it is incapable of responding to crisis. Liberalism created a prison for the working class, but the guards are trapped in it too, and no one can conceive of escaping even as the lights flicker and the foundation crumbles.

>>2597735
I just don't think it's a very useful political position

Deleuze is a hack

>>2597712
Liberalism and entire capitalist mode of production is dying now that productive forces have changed fundamentally with AI and robotics.

>Everybody will eventually learn to love liberalism because the atomized liberal subject who is free to set up whatever they want as their identity/being and be validated for it is the least bad model for every ideological tendency out there
No it isnt. This is basically everything wrong with liberalism and why it will never work in a society where there will never be peace. What a dumb thread.

>>2597803
>No it isnt
>90% of our current politics is based on identitarian grifting and resentment both from the right and the left
This is literally what Fukuyama predicted,he believed that the end point is that people will eventually just retreat into themselves and whoever wants to validate them and their identities.

fukuyama has said that identity politics and class warfare destabilise liberalism and that we need more social-democratic controls

>>2597835
Yes, he recanted them because of Trump and other populist like Modi which is the main thrust of (right wing) identitarianism. But his og thesis about Liberalism being the ultimate mechanism of self affirmation in the Hegelian sense remains pretty convincing to me, because unlike Fukuyama i do not think that Trump or Modi or Meloni etc present a massive ontological break from liberal individualism

>If you actually read about Fukuyama what he said is legit what a lot of lib leftoids (and rightoids who want to have individual space where they can identify as an agarthan superman) wants society to look like.
That's a moot point though because it's pretty obvious that liberal democracy doesn't enjoy unchallenged dominance and is actually under threat from both within and without.

>>2597739
I think you mistake something anon, Fukuyama isn't necessarily advocating for capitalist social relations (although that is part of his thrust), which indeed is unable to response to long term disruptions as Marx remarked. Rather Fukuyama is defending what i called the worldview of capitalism, where people are atomized individuals who picked their own identities and the ultimate goal of this identity building is "being true to yourself/your conscience". (This applies to trads too, being a trad in a secular society isn't being a trad, it's being an individual, real medieval trads adjust their beliefs based on their village and shit).
Fukuyama's argument is that nobody wants to move away from this atomizing way of life into the more collective ones like Marx's conception of the overwhelming uniform mass of the declassed, because we all deep down want our special snowflake identities to be validated and thus we benefit from the current liberal idpol status.
For example, third worldists do not want to abandon religion and insist on keeping as part of the struggle against capitalism. First worlders do not want to sacrifice the treats they get even though the third world workers outnumber them and thus the latter should've been accorded more importance than the former. Gay and queer comrades do not want to hide their identities and throw it under the bus even though that will objectively make our movement more palatable to heteronormative workers that way outnumber queer people in this world. This is called intersectionality, and i'm not saying that it is bad, in fact i benefit from this arrangement (i am a religious/spiritual third worldists), but intersectionality imo is just living proof that Fukuyama is right about nobody wanting to move on from the atomized individual models of liberalism

>>2597730
>there's nothing wrong with individualism per-se, the problem with capitalism is that it inadequately facilitates individualism. the problem with rightoid individualism is that it ultimately serves either capitalism or killeveryoneism.
That's what I've always said. People assume a dichotomy between "individualism and collectivism" with capitalism on one end and communism on the other. But communism is not this "collectivist" repudiation of the individual, like Lolbertarian randroids exist, nor is capitalism repudiation of the collective. What Marx pointed out was that Capitalism socializes the production process but keeps the ownership private. So Capitalism is incomplete socialization. Proletarian association necessarily occurs due to the cooperation of proletarian individuals to carry out proletarian revolution. There is no collective action without individual willpower. Each prole in the real movement must independently arrive at the same conclusion through a historical materialist analysis. The individual is still very much in play.

>>2597824
It's a strong argument and certainly that social tendency has taken place, but ultimately class struggle and the need for imperialism (not even mentioning all the other contradictions of capitalism to be) invalidates this, even if it can be the case for a period of time. Fukuyama tacitly admits as much himself
>>2597867
That doesn't really mean much, and your premise is a bit skewed in the first place. Semi-individual identity and interests have existed for as long as man exists. And most of the specific things you mention exist only insofar as the social context of capitalism enables them to and forces them to exist. So capitalist social relations are in fact the key factor in the argument you make, and they condition our worldviews.

>>2597877
>to be
*to be brief

>>2597867
This atomizing individualism did not exist beforehand. It was imposed by liberal society and the liberal state as they evolved over time, as a conscious/unconscious attempt to thwart the socialization of society that would lead to communism. This evolution was very successful, but deprived bourgeois society of the collectivity it needs to respond to current day economic and social crises. Hence the global crisis of legitimacy facing liberal democracies today, and the slide towards despotism which is taking place across the Americas and Europe.