Liberalism is in Trouble | Aaron Bastani meets Francis Fukuyama | Downstream
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- Few political thinkers exert such influence that their work becomes synonymous with a historic era and they find themselves in books, dissertations and speeches written and said by people who’ve not even read them.
Aaron speaks to Francis Fukuyama, author of ‘Liberalism and it’s Discontents’.
Buy Francis’ book here: profilebooks.com/work/liberal...
_________________________________________________________
Subscribe to our Newsletter, 'The Pick':
novara.media/thepick
_________________________________________________________
Subscribe to Novara Media on CZcams ⇛ novara.media/youtube
Support our work ⇛ novaramedia.com/support
Buy our merch ⇛ shop.novaramedia.com
Great interview Aaron. Interesting to see Fukuyama fail to address multiple internal contradictions within his world view even now. He accepts that extreme wealth inequality gives a minority great power over the political system but he won’t countenance taxing extreme wealth, opting to rely on a system which regulates how they can spend the money. Later he says “powerful people won’t accept constraints on their power”. Does he think the ability for media barons and oligarchs to lobby for influence came about by accident? Apply retractions to the very powerful and they will find a way to end those restrictions- that’s essentially what the Thatcher, Reagan project was about. If someone has a gun they’ve used to shoot people are you going to tell them they aren’t allowed to shoot people with it anymore or are you going to take the gun off them? Extreme wealth inequality is extreme power inequality and you won’t fix the latter without changing the former.
Great comment. When governments enable this sort of behaviour we end up with a modern version of fascism. There is plenty of evidence right wing parties have formed an unholy alliance with rich & powerful private interests to mutually consolidate their privilege at the top of government and the socio-economic spectrum. If this is not part of a fascist spectrum I don't know what is. Democracy is gradually dying by degrees because the left wing parties are also caught in this corruption & won't do what their constituents want.
Although I can appreciate many of Fukuyama‘s values. I think his end of history missed the mark entirely because he didn’t understand what happened with the eastern bloc.
In regards to the economic failure of the eastern Bloc it was largely from US finance capitalism, the petro dollar, and other factors.
But the ideological failure in those states was not anti-Socialist it was anti-Marxist Leninist vanguardism. Dissidents like Václav Havel were still socialist who advocated for radical egalitarianism and more open direct democracy, small businesses cooperativism etc.
The western press mostly erased the real revolution that took place and replaced it with neoliberalism.
So the book was mostly Fukuyama‘s fantasy, not what was really happening.
People are in fact surprised how popular the communist party or their derivatives remain in the eastern Bloc nations, but the fact is the issues of the rebel dissidents against the Soviets were never addressed and only got worse and their politics were squashed by neoliberalism. And the east bloc has this lingering Östalgia as a result, a sort of lost hope for democracy and egalitarianism which was suddenly aborted. The last thing they wanted was to be annexed by corporate capitalism.
Democracy is weak now because it is weak from the beginning. It is like a flower. Reality is stronger than a lie. However this is like Roman Republic being Roman Empire more or less.
We need democracy to some capacity or way , but not the western way.
Liberalism is bs.
Great point! When you say you want to regulate how the rich spent money, the first question is who makes the rule. If you can’t constrain that, there is no way that the rich will not make rules to their own benefit and keeps it that way.
Is right!
Took him a lifetime to come to the conclusion that social democracy has something to offer, and that provision of universal services is an essential element of liberal democracy. 🤔
That is not an unusual thing in intellectuals. Many physicist rejected Albert Einstein for many years. Even Einstein never really got comfortable with quantum dynamics. Ideas and intellectual positions tend to have a kind of psychological momentum that takes years to reverse and change. You see the same thing especially in religion. It is rather a good thing that he has the flexibility of mind and character to reverse or reevaluate his former dogmas.
@@jewulo Considering that Fukujama wrote essentially the meme of the century, I'm not displeased with him reevaluating some of his previous assumptions. Intellectual curiosity is something I learned to respect from the late and great Michael Brooks.
Better late than never, eh?
@@SteveDorrans 👍
@@jewulo except for all the bad ideas and information he pumped out for decades and years, you mean?
Nice one! Aaron's respectful probing questions are great for understanding the ideology of Francis and challenging him - not trying to catch him out but instead make him defend his position effectively as possible to probe the pitfalls in his arguments. Novara is out there to inform, educate and analyse.
I bet he was called a fascist before by the Novara people.
I give Mr. Bastiani a lot of praise for this interview. It was the best interview I have watched all Sunday.
how many interviews did you watch
Democracy is weak now because it is weak from the beginning. It is like a flower. Reality is stronger than a lie. However this is like Roman Republic being Roman Empire more or less.
We need democracy to some capacity or way , but not the western way.
Liberalism is bs.
Yeah I feel like Bastiani understands political reality better than Fukuyama does after the first 30min. I'm not ideologically aligned with either but I feel like his questions reveal a better understanding between the the two
You had a short Sunday, din't you?
Really good interview Aaron! It's so weird learning this guy whose name looms so large in this sphere is literally just a garden variety liberal haha
The power of a good slogan
@@user-rc8zt8wf6w Have you read any of his work? The Origins of Political Order? Political Order and Political Decay? Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment? Doesn't sound like you've read a word he's written, only what has been written about him--probably by other people who haven't read him either.
@@nathanjones9127 what else did you expect with manufactured consent? Do you really think intellectual interactions available to the public are really open conversations towards actual free expression rather than just mere moulds you are meant to fit or else remain in darkness. In my humble opinion, we are still stuck in the vestiges of the reformation and a new wave is upon us. The politics seem pretty similar and the players all the same, in short, the old guard never went away they just sit behind the curtain in not a straight forward manner not needing power when they can control policy, when they are the industry and remain the industry the state depends upon, effectively making them the true aristocracy and by their behavior their model seems to “shadow” the government in terms of resources therefore they never have to keep up with the state but rather keep growing in such way they alone can rival it, that’s why if you look at every country that is a client state, the model of control of their local politics many a time stems out of the military which in turn is often tied to families subservient to a system of beliefs that perpetuate its inclination towards suggestive double talk, the sort of entertainment the populate enjoys, fairy tales. I ask people, you all get taken in by these Forbes style of displaying wealth yet many doesn’t take into consideration that these people, take Amazon, had to rise funds in order to exist, if it’s owner is now rich, what do you think the original investors are? Since they already had money to begin with?
Democracy is weak now because it is weak from the beginning. It is like a flower. Reality is stronger than a lie. However this is like Roman Republic being Roman Empire more or less.
We need democracy to some capacity or way , but not the western way.
Liberalism is bs.
It shocked me too - i had no idea he was such an ideologue. I actually quoted him in my dissertation 20 years ago. I can't change that now but it's sure obvious now that Huntington's "clash of civilizations" is the right paradigm. Meanwhile, I'm watching the 🌈Global American Empire☠™ fracturing as the multi-polar world arises.
.... and that word "democracy" he says in every other sentence, it doesn't appear even once in any of our three founding documents.
Thatcher was on the right side in the Miners' Strike?? Take him to a
railway bridge in South Yorkshire that's had to be fortified with
three-foot spikes because so many people jumped off it after the pit
closed, and ask him to repeat that. I watched this video hoping for
evidence that Fukuyama had actually moved to the Left, but find myself
sorely disappointed.
@@eightiesmusic1984 Exactly. Fukuyama is still the same elitist neoliberal scumbag he always was, and Aaron should have pushed back on him a bit more.
Certainly was a jarring moment.The whole interview was soft-soaping but thats the way it has to be when interviewing the ''center' ?
Yepp Aaron didn't challenge him at all
@@melchoraslez1689 I guess he was some kind of scalp for Novara and deference was the order of the day... Although I know a young very talented woman who works for the same outfit who wouldn't have been so gentle.
Fukuyuma brought up the repeal of the US Glass-Steagall Act. This happened in 1999, while Fukuyuma's ideology was being vigorously celebrated by our right-lurching Democratic party, and he could have easily spoken out against it and swayed Congress. But he didn't, because such deregulation was, and I'd bet a ton of money still *is*, a cornerstone of his ideology.
Even softened by age and experience, Fukuyama is still insufferable.
Outstanding, Aaron Bastani, this is one of the most interesting and informative interviews I have watched in a very long time, thank you Aaron for all of your work in researching and making sense of the situation we're in now in analysing both historical and cultural events, brilliant journalism, thank you
Aaron is a great great journalist. Very interesting ITW. From 🇨🇵
The movie that captures the end of history best would have to be the Matrix because presumably it's set far in the future, but when they chose to simulate the world, they simulate the USA in 1999, which was arguably the peak of the liberal era, and in the movie it literally is the end-point of human history and it just drags unsatisfactorily on and on.
I had never made that connection, you are exactly right.
The first film I thought of regarding that question was _American Beauty._
@@1monki so true. The movie depicted the decline of the American family and society, notwithstanding its riches.
Lmao, leave it to a amurican too make american history the world history 😂😂
It's no coincidence that The Matrix, American Beauty, Office Space and Fight Club all came out in the same year.
Fukuyama, consistent with all liberals, is absolutely clueless about the major social and economic dynamics of our age. People don't like free trade because Trump tells them its bad?!! It's embarrassing. Almost total vacuity.
Agree. He doesn’t seem to have learned much. We just need to sand off the rough edges of neoliberalism. Had the wrong take with the “end of history” and still doesn’t seem to get that people are angry because capitalism doesn’t deliver for most people. Blaming social media for current polarisation in society is blaming symptom rather than cause
He is like "this form of capitalism is bad. I want the fairer more intelligent version". Yeah well it will always end up this way as some gain more wealth and therefore power and change the system to suit them.
@@peterallen1999 There was an FT special on the future of capitalism a couple of years ago that said the same. "Capitalism must learn to be more responsible". I mean FFS!
Liberalism: A Counter-History
Book by Domenico Losurdo.
Highly recommend
So here's the thread by the little socialist coterie. Anger on...
An amazing interview, Aaron, and kudos to you and to the whole Novara Media team for the fantastic work you do.
Fascinating and timely interview. Thank you both for your part.
This interview again demonstrates how Novara is the most interesting and worthwhile media platform in the UK. Bastani is an excellent thinker.
And so is Fukuyama, I think. I never took him that seriously until being exposed to him recently. Despite being a liberal, he shares the same interpretation of the political reality as most of the Left do (a rare thing today). It's just his prescriptions are different. And, upon reading his book, I don't even think those prescriptions are so bad. I'm far more radical, and think the climate situation and growing poverty necessitates that. But I'm going to be far less dismissive of the liberal case from now on, at least if it's made as articulately as it is by Fukuyama.
Thank you to all involved.
His take on Defund the Police and Zelensky could and should have been challenged at the very least.
@@gos4343 agreed, I see a willful inability to understand the concept behind Defund The Police, despite pretty articulate definitions being available.
If the FBI feels the police are infested with white supremacists - love em or hate em, they're not bad at investigating when motivated - and yet those police are buying tanks & calling officers "warriors", a reset is needed.
@@gos4343
When time is limited, I'm not sure there's much point.
It's an interview more than a debate here.
@@michaelrch Yes I very much take (and considered this before posting) that point. I am quite certain Bastani in normal circumstances, would have challenged the points. Perhaps it is just, this kind of format is not for me. Bastani’s push backs on Tysky (MW has left me shaking my head more times than I am comfortable with) on the Russian invasion of Ukraine have just about kept me clinging on as a viewer of Tysky Sour recently. So here then, we are left with simply listening to someone express views that are rank poor and against the evidence and facts 🤷♂. Interviews should have a natural flow and explore where it goes….but I am just a viewer, bewildered and tired of hearing Zelensky is a Saint, not a producer of content.
It is striking how little the economic dimension of things factor into fukuyama's thought in this interview. Shows you how constraint and small-minded their ideas really are.
Surprising how shallow Fukayama's analysis is
I fully agree.
LOL! CZcams commenters acting like they have a clue about a damn thing.
Really impressed you got such a big name on to interview, at your office to by the look of it, novara is definitely on the up and up!
I don't know. I agree with Fukuyama to the extent that liberal democracy is preferable yo right wing dictatorships obviously. But that's a low bar. Besides that, I don't really rate him. Interesting though.
Fear not, the world is now led by leftist authoritarians.
Right wing dictatorship is the natural evolution of liberal democracy .
This was a great interview Aaron. I still think you left him off the hook on the oil & gas topic though, since it's not like it's comparable to which supermarket is doing a special promotion on your favourite groceries this week. It's more comparable to the NHS IMHO, where the State regulates its monopoly, and private entities try to compete at a much smaller scale on punctual needs of its customers. But because the State doesn't have its own company competing in this industry, there's no fairness in the oil & gas prices. A public option is needed. Same with Broadband!
Interesting, have long wanted to see some people come on left media to try and defend the status quo.
Really interesting conversation between two people with enormous fundamental differences
Aaron is doing a great job
Well, I wouldn’t go as far as enormous.
@@deepstrider Bastani is a socialist, Fukuyama is a neoliberal. That's about as large as the gap gets within conventional politics.
@@tomlangford1999 These labels mean nothing when this interview, in my view, shows their differences are not all that big.
@@deepstrider I agree, they are both products of their times. Fundamentally I think they are both humanists.
This was fantastic, and I can’t think of many other media platforms other than Novara and maybe TYT who could get away with a 1 hour interview of Francis Fukuyama.
The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and Spain are all constitutional monarchies that are members of the EU. Further, very few countries in the EU have directly-elected heads-of-state. Defining democracy in terms of an elected head-of-state is quite a strange idea.
Very true!
Same with the UK.
Great interview! Mr. Fukuyama said much that I disagree with; I feel he had a real tendency to gloss over the many ill consequences of neoliberal politics, taking a detached economistic road that looked at deregulation simply as unwise decision-making and seldom examining the very real effects on ordinary people, ignoring the harsh realities faced by those on the bottom rung of liberal society's priorities. But it's interesting to get a better understanding of his perspective, and I think for your differing views the interview was conducted in a good way, without the hostility and attempts to "gotcha" that have become prevalent in so much political media
Great analysis!
Really enjoying these interviews Novara has been doing lately, I'd appreciate these more frequently!
I usually listen on Spotify, but I watched it this time and still found it interesting, gotta say though, the camera work was distracting me a little, specifically the zoomed, shakey cam bits. Might just be me, still a fantastic interview
very informative. Thank you!
His points on Germany are pretty shallow. Unification lead to big economic problems for ordinary folks, massive social decline. Now the economy is fuelled by people from eastern europe, who are massively exploited. Afd is not the result of GDR, but of economic and political failure after unification.
Yeah, but it is also worth remembering that the AfD was formed in what was formerly West Germany, not in the former GDR, and that it was a conservative, currency and austerity obsessed and anti EU party at its inception, not a protest party for disgruntled or disadvantaged “Ossis”.
If anything, I guess that the “sound money” and austerity bits, as well as the opposition to “bailouts” of Southern European states (actually bailouts of German banks by proxy) of the original party programme, would not be totally foreign to Fukuyama’s own views, even if he may not be on board with its general anti EU stance, or its progressively more and more obvious racism (initially veiled in economic fables and moralising about “lazy, spendthrift Southern Europeans vs. industrious, thrifty Germans”) .
@@DebatingWombat the AFD is a strong movement in both Bavaria and Saxony. The Saxony branch has a different politics to the Bavarians and is distinctly a type of Östalgia. AFD is often non-sensical because it is an incoherent coalition. Even recently the Saxon AFD voted against arming Ukraine because they said they owe a debt to the Russians/Soviets for being true to their word and leaving. While the Bavarians sided with Ukraine.
I think Fukuyama’s end of history missed the mark entirely because he didn’t understand what happened with the eastern bloc.
In regards to the economic failure of the eastern Bloc it was largely from US finance capitalism, the petro dollar, and other factors.
But the ideological failure in those states was not anti-Socialist it was anti-Marxist Leninist vanguardism. Dissidents like Václav Havel were still socialist who advocated for radical egalitarianism and more open direct democracy and cooperativism, small business etc.
The western press mostly erased the real revolution that took place and replaced it with neoliberalism.
So the book was mostly Fukuyama‘s fantasy, not what was really happening.
People are in fact surprised how popular the communist party or their derivatives remain in the eastern Bloc nations, but the fact is the issues of the rebel dissidents against the Soviets were never addressed and only got worse and their politics were squashed by neoliberalism. And the east bloc has this lingering Östalgia as a result, a sort of lost hope for democracy and egalitarianism or populism which was suddenly aborted. The last thing they wanted was to be annexed by corporate capitalism.
Both Saxony AFD and Die Linke are derived from this sentiment.
Brilliant journalism, made me stay up waaaay past my bedtime. Your gentle inquisitorial style produced some amazing results, not least the idea that Fukuyama considers Zelensky a role model; A president that has permitted/allowed/overseen, the almost complete destruction of his country, including the abandonment by 10% of the already drastically reducing population.
Thanks Aaron, bring us some more.
Hyperbolic
@@cuervos69:: Truth is never "hyperbolic".
Great interview!
LOL
TLDR : Fukuyama rationalization: "I was right, it was the world that was wrong"
What's better than the Liberal view of the individual deciding what's best for them in a Liberal state based society? Libertarian socialism.
Consensus building, community building. Co-operation.
Yeah, agree. This idea of an autonomous individual can only really exist in an already functioning society. You get the functioning society through community and working together. Better that be through consensus than authoritarianism
How exactly does a system literally centered around shifting the power of classes become Libertarian?
Are we supposed to vote rich people into giving up their political power?
Wait until a bigger state shows up, I’m sure it will work next time…
Although I can appreciate many of Fukuyama‘s values. I think his end of history missed the mark entirely because he didn’t understand what happened with the eastern bloc.
In regards to the economic failure of the eastern Bloc it was largely from finance capitalism, the petro dollar, and other factors.
But the ideological failure in those states was not anti-Socialist it was anti-Marxist Leninist vanguardism. Dissidents like Václav Havel were still socialist who advocated for radical egalitarianism and more open direct democracy and cooperativism, small businesses etc.
The western press mostly erased the real revolution that took place and replaced it with neoliberalism.
So the book was mostly Fukuyama‘s fantasy, not what was really happening.
People are in fact surprised how popular the communist party or their derivatives remain in the eastern Bloc nations, but the fact is the issues of the rebel dissidents against the Soviets were never addressed and only got worse and their politics were squashed by neoliberalism. And the east bloc has this lingering Östalgia as a result, a sort of lost hope for democracy and egalitarianism which was suddenly aborted. The last thing they wanted was to be annexed by corporate capitalism.
So Fukuyama’s is way off the mark in his assessment. The first thing the followers of Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did was a brutal shock therapy which eventually resulted in Putin.
@@sabirzain5053 It's libertarian because it involves a scepticism towards social hierachy, reflected in a preference for decentralised, egalitarian forms of social organisation (e.g. labour syndicates, workers' councils, worker co-operatives) and seeking to affect change from below, through direct action, as opposed to, say, wielding state power.
Great interview. I was thinking about a few of these ideas in a very unstructured way for a while. The way that our nation has been run for a very narrow slice of the electorate has become a problem. We have had a distorting drag on our democracy because policy can be bought in return for favours. The second house has veto on lawmaking in the first house and is front loaded by a group of people who are not elected. Many are hereditary, many are nominated. This implies a ruling class generating continuity of the class system over meritocracy. The maintenance of a first-past-the post election system with weighted voting rather than proportional representation limits debate to a narrow spectrum of outcomes. In recent times Brexit and Boris’ ability to circumvent the “gentleman’s“ agreements that allowed realistic debate and parliamentary policy shaping and the naked subversion of policy makers by big business, oligarchs and other monied interests, have become starkly obvious. We get to vote in elections but there is very little there for us beyond Election Day. Our next revolution will have to be a modernisation of our democracy, because what we have doesn’t appear to be relevant or functioning.
Excellent discussion. More of this please Novara!
From Neo-con to liberal to social democrat, just admit you was wrong 😂
@@user-rc8zt8wf6w I agree
Crazy that this man has spent his entire career (largely wrongly) being mocked about his wrongness for the end of history and yet he is still being wrong all over the place. Crazy stuff!
I dont agree with you but i love your sense of humour 😂
He's very careful to not throw the Elites completely under the bus
I want to know if he's read Capitalist Realism. Fukuyama's preeminence as a political scholar shows how neoliberalism elevates the average and pedestrian over the passionate and brilliant.
As soon as you ask these guys a question about curbing extreme individual wealth it’s like they’ve been asked if pigs can fly or can water be changed into wine.
If there is no reason the British Govt "should own British Telecom or British steel bc those things can be operated by a private entity just as well .." that also means there is no reason the British Government Shouldn't' own those things. Fukuyama is a dinosaur just barely raising his head and just now noticing the fiery comet burning a path through the sky.
@@user-rc8zt8wf6w it's his "did you know Neo-liberalism might be flawed" attitude that gets me.
He was being kind. The private sector does service provision way better than government. Like, it is not even close. The only places they do worse is when they have monopoly market power. Which most often comes from... government.
Capitalism is capitalists fighting other capitalists. That's why capitalists are so eager to get the government to grant them special status. Capitalists will collude with other capitalists, when they can get away with it. But who is going to stop them colluding with governments? The government?
@@FinallyAFreeUsername lol! US Health Care most privatized and most Expensive and least efficient in the world
@@nowthenzen and yet most of the innovation in healthcare which everyone else benifits from, comes from the US.
@@mustafa8988 how does everyone benefit from something they can't afford? US Covid vaccines were developed with public $$
Great Interview and extremely Interesting views.
This is interesting. I am happy he came on and Aaron as always great questions and responses. I see him getting a hard time in the comments section but I dont understand why not focus on the positive that he has changed his mind on certain issues and open to change. That is surely a good thing.
On his talk about the rational voter and social psychology > political science. Wow so true. I have only got engaged in politics and philosophy in general over the last 4 years. I am fascinated by how most people, 95% of people I interact with and listen to, fall into this category of sides>policies or ideas. I hear some people literally staunchly oppose one event and get so angry about it because actor A is doing something bad to Actor B, but then in a similar incident, where Actor B seems to be harming Actor A all of a sudden they hold a completely different and opposite view. At best they might be silent because their "side" is doing the harming or at worst they will be celebrating and justifying Actor B, a complete 180!! And again I see this with so many people. Smart people aswell. Clearly that is part of human nature. I myself probably on some cases do it.
Before the new liberal order there was an old liberal order.
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s - neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 - Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising nationalism and extremism
1940s - World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
Everything is progressing nicely and we are approaching the final destination.
This is what it's supposed to be like.
Right wing populist leaders are what we should be expecting at this stage and it keeps on getting worse.
Things do tend to fall apart at the seams when using neoclassical economics.
Neoclassical economics is a pseudo economics; it’s more about hiding the discoveries of the classical economists than telling you how an economy actually works.
I remember now, it was Keynesian capitalism that won the battle of ideas against Russian Communism.
These liberal phases never end well.
Then you are in for a shock when you see what Conservative phases looks like. Of course, you'll prob dismiss it as "neo-liberalism" ... and miss what's going on as Conservatism ripens into homicide. You re seeing the mask coming off in israel. Maybe you don' t know how good you had it.
Great interview
Why do people keep talking to Fukuyama? It’s hard to think of a public intellectual whose central thesis has been more thoroughly discredited, which would be bad enough, except that his role in PNAC and the illegal and disastrous Iraq war gives his scholarship an actual *body count.*
Now, in the wake of that bloodbath, he might have actually had some pretty interesting insights, _if_ he demonstrated a shred of self-awareness. Instead, he’s continually doubled down with increasingly futile attempts to plead around or outright ignore the constantly-growing series of gaping holes & contradictions in his thesis. But most damningly, he then went on the become an advisor to Gaddafi. *Gaddafi!* Hired for the explicit purpose of laundering his image and _increasing Gaddafi’s sway over U.S. foreign policy makers!_ *Gaddafi!*
Why does anyone listen to this man about anything? His ideas are demonstrably flawed, his influence has caused severe real-world harm, he seems to lack any ability to meaningfully integrate evidence which contradicts his worldview, and he appears to have no moral compass whatsoever. He’s like a smooth jazz retread of Henry Kissinger.
It's funny watching Aaron sometimes in the interview. Fukuyama makes a vague statement and Aaron then just jumps in and expands it into something much more specific "You do agree with me on this thing I believe right?", (like taking energy back into public ownership) and he's always like "No... That's not what I meant...".
They forgot to mention Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Haiti, Cuba, Argentina, Paraguay, Honduras, Afghanistan, Greece, Italy, and dozens of other countries that the US has interfered with. Before, during, and after the cold war.
This was great. So interesting
American troops were guarding Chinese railway stations alongside Japanese troops a few weeks after the war ended. Americans can switch allegiance very quickly.
I get what you mean, but the Yanks have only had one allegiance, to US capitalism and imperialism and the broader global capitalist system.
@@sentientnatalie There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Ordinary life in a liberal democracy,.....whatever that means, I don't think I've experienced that yet.
No, you and we both have. The essence of liberalism is the sanctity of capitalist private property, everything else that ideology has to say is just abstract, meaningless fluff.
@@sentientnatalie yeah but that is not what the word liberal means really, I don't think capitalism and democracy are the same thing either
@@richardfinlayson1524 Well, that's a start lol. Capitalism and democracy are incompatible with each other, for there cannot be anything but conflict between the beneficiaries of each.
Now, what does liberalism mean to you?
@@richardfinlayson1524 Btw, YT deleted a longer form response of mine, probably because I mentioned a podcast that's also on YT that I thought you should check out, as well as a book title that was also probably flagged.
@@sentientnatalie okay, interesting
Well informed balanced interview
More interviews like this Novara !
great addition to the Progressive media-sphere
Nice interview, but I would like to see the Ash Sarkar version.
Great questioning Aaron
You are a very good interviewer Aaron
Thanks!
What a bonus. Cheers Novara , Aaron.
Fair play to Bastani for sitting it out with a deeply deluded, privileged old man.
I have a lot of time for these NM specials and their journalists.
AB is interviewing one of the foremost exponents of - however Mr Fukuyama may now deny it - neo liberal economics. Pleased though I am that he now seems to recognise Social Democracy, it still needs to be understood that these - generally European- governments owe much of their wealth to past imperial power (or, like Norway, to chance natural resources).
But. A good interesting balanced and well mannered interview: I could easily listen to an interview of this quality every week!
just wanted to say that I love those occasional close-up hand camera shots! :o
Thanks
Good interview
When you say “the threat to democracy in America”… I mean, has America really been truly democratic since the 80s, when the corporations took control?
Try 1776, the ability to vote, even if "universal" does not make a democracy if the wishes of the masses are ignored, and they are and always have been when it comes to the economy in particular.
Downstream has been having some really big name guests recently. Makes me excited about who we will get to see you interview in the future
If Fukuyama thinks there is no competition for the worst US president (e.g. George W Bush, Richard Nixon, Andrew Johnson) and Trump is measurably far worse than all others, he is blinded by Trump's personal behavior. Fukuyama, and others feeling the same way as he, should focus on public policy, rather than their personal revulsion, when coming to such conclusions.
I agree and its tiresum in the extreme listening to a parade of talking heads dislike of Trump's grating personality completely overshadow any sensible talk of how they actually fared as President completely dismissing all actions for good or ill on a domestic and global stage....Trump was and is a Loud mouthed carnival barker of a man...
but I'd not even rank him in the top 5 worst presidents.. I've lived through
I agree but I think I see why. Fukuyama has always been an advocate for nurturing a liberal national identity as a shared value system. So Trump is the exact opposite of what he has in mind based on behavior.
Fukuyama’s father Yoshio was a very socially liberal pastor. And Fukuyama believes that social liberalism and economic liberalism are intertwined an idea which died a long time ago.
I am from the same Church denomination as Fukuyama and his father, the UCC.
But there are big Ironies. Obama is also from the UCC and walked away when he was challenged by a UCC pastor Wright about war interventionalism. Meanwhile Trump runs on a platform of anti-war a traditional UCC position.
But I saw a complete split in the UCC with Trump over this. Some couldn’t stand his behavior, but others rightly pointed out that Trump was the anti-war candidate not Clinton.
And one of the reason‘s Fukuyama left the Republicans was because of Iraq.
The conclusion Fukuyama should be making is partisan politics is so broken that we can no longer even vote on the illusion of our values.
I really expected something... More.. from an intellectual who is so well known. But Fukuyama comes across as just a painfully mediocre thinker
Yes, Fukuyama just comes across as an average Daily Kos commenter.
Always has been
Sad as it is, I am not even sure Trump is the worst president ever. I think Reagan might be taking that prize. Then again, when its picking between plague or cholera, its a hard pick
It´s kind of telling that Fukuyama, like many moderate right-wingers, usually point out the character shortcomings, the visual grossness and their unease with the grotesque, of Trump. They seem to be ok when somebody does extremist anti-human politics with a low tone of voice and a tidy posture.
Has been finished for decades. We need Firm, Fair Politics, Law, Order & Principled Values.
I agree, liberalism is in trouble because fewer and fewer people are buying it as something to embrace.
Interesting interview!
He never was Conservative. He's always been a Liberal.
I took him decades to finally have correct views on at least one topic.
I never would have imagined that Fukuyama would be arguing in favor of Social Democracy
Desperate to slavage their failed ideas.
great guest and gret host!
amazing! exactly right. he has intellectuial honesty and self respect. a real intellectual can admit they can be wrong about stuff. what a great guy. big love and respect for ma dude Francis! 🤌🏼 🤌🏼 🤌🏼 ❤️ ✊🏼 🔥
Interesting discussion
Fury Road was 2015. _Wrong again, Francis!_
Great interview Aaron. I really don’t think Fukuyama has a lot to offer.
He regrets the hubris of his statement about the end of history, but has no vision of a post-neoliberal politics. He lays the blame for our current politics on accumulation of wealth but stops short of saying that accumulation is itself the problem.
And he also misremembers the roots of division in US political history if he doesn’t track it back to Nixon.
If anything I would say that Fukuyama mainly regrets that his own politics has produced such poor outcomes.
Good interview. Just bought his book.
Mad move Novara yes
Fukuyama described Novara in many instances of this interview.
The mental gymnastics of these 2 party sycophant types is astounding.
So he has never been to Vermont or Maine, absolutely beautiful states east of the Mississippi river. Or to upstate New York for that matter.
I worry for America and the world if Trump gets in again.
I know what you mean, but Biden's long standing antipathy towards Russia is taking us to the brink right now.
@@hazelwray4184 he ought to keep his mouth shut.
Great discussion but I fundamentally disagree with Mr Fukuyama on most issues, especially his view on "Defund The Police!
The trouble with Defund is not the policy, just the slogan. I mean, what could be scarier to an apolitical suburbian than the prospect of the police disappearing? A real shame - naming the movement that way was a gift to the right.
@@benjiorchard1203 actually academics & Democrat leaders co-opted the movement for *police reform* with the slogan. .
@@stoniblue3569 interesting - so what was originally a nuanced attempt at police reform got nabbed and repackaged by the establishment? still, i think it's the most abhorrent piece of political branding i've ever come across
@@benjiorchard1203 How much can we be blamed for middle america for not paying attention? We don't have the capacity to reach them anyway.
Defunding the police was literally the only viable policy as even when police are sucessfully sued, the payouts come from other departments like education. You can ONLY stop the harm of police by getting rid of them, and redeployment of their funding to more effective and less repressive areas like housing is rock solid. It's a chill reformist policy that shouldn't be scary at all unless you are the ruling class. Summing it up as "Defund the Police" is reasonable.
Cops are a tool of the ruling class & even disregarding demagoguery, the ruling class was never going to allow this to happen. Capitalists media & the Right spamming disinformation was the issue, not the slogan which had a ton of information supporting it.
@@JohnSmith-ft4gc yeah its a reasonable policy but calling it 'defund the police' is such an instant optics win to the right. as i said, the slogan doesn't encapsulate the sensible nature of the movement, rather it sounds like some lunatic plot to remove all police enforcement.
I can't lie - I've never heard of this guy. However, his insight is fascinating and the interview as a whole was brilliant. This sort of thing is one of the many reasons I like Novara.
Standard teaching in history and philosophy at degree level
@@glowwurm9365 I did Computer Science at uni. I was good with computers, so it made sense. However, over the years, I've become so much more political. Would have enjoyed studying stuff like this at uni.
Great interview, Mr. Fukuyama's views are very informative and on point.
I thought Fukiyamas, Origins of political Order was illuminating and brilliantly researched. Not your usual cut and paste job, which most political commentary is these days... Im very excited to hear his views on the world order. The end of History is an academic book going over old arguments, it brought nothing truly original to the discussion.
There are to many assumptions that are not properly questioned. Life is always more complex and dynamic than any written idea or philosophy. It never pays to be specific, because in most cases in philosophy you end up in a dead end street, or some infinite vortex. Origins is a much more open end book that expands the historical arguments on the origins of different political systems and the political orientation of peoples. The book in many ways goes beyond its frame and in some ways touches on human and cultural evolution of societies.
I don't think I was ever this disappointed after listening to a world famous intellectual. And I actually saw this one in person a few years ago.
I wonder - could Novara media be able to do an entry into the differences of thought around Liberalism, Postmodernism, communism, socialism .... I've noticed a trend online, particularly in the rights' stoking up of culture wars, were definitions seem to be confused, straw men positions created, and ideas are being critiqued by people that dont realise how far some of these schools of thought seriously critique each other and are not born of the same traditions.
He was dead wrong about the End of History, and he’s dead wrong now.
Why are people even still giving this dude air time?
How did he just say that energy isn't a natural monopoly but sewerage is? He said you can't have multiple companies laying pipes to a house. Can you have multiple companies laying electric cables or gas pipes to a house?
Excellent interview. Intelligent questions, intelligent answers.
Great job. Masterful interview. But individual rights advocates need to be held to account for the distinction between domestic and international application of their advice. The Achilles heel of individual rights in foreign policy ideology is dead bodies accumulating when it (usually) fails in translation across international boundaries and crashes headlong into nationalism. Little over a year after this interview his confidence in Zelensky's future looks wildly optimistic. But that is his brand after all.
Nothing can change is also a very dangerous example of the politics of eternity...
Can you do an interview every week Aaron? Would be fantastic.
dope
"I'm not conservative"
also, "Thatcher was on the right side of the miner strike".
🤨🧐🤨🧐🤨🧐🤨
What can one say about someone whose grand thesis was apparently to look around the world 30 years ago, and think, 'we can't improve on this'. More incredulously, people thought it was some kind of profound insight. It was then as is now, surely the deepest form of pessimism about our species
"The other thing that may not have been anticipated is just their use of their resources in politics. It's amazing the number of really really rich Americans that then fund really right-wing causes"
May not have been anticipated? I'm both astonished and not surprised at all that this person was once a celebrated scholar of political science.