Is Liberalism Dead? Fukuyama vs Gray
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- Is liberalism obsolete? Two great political philosophers debated this question on 22 March 2022.
Professor Francis Fukuyama was joined in conversation by John Gray, the British political philosopher, who rejects the idea of universal liberal values and human progress. Despite the view held by many that the Russian invasion of Ukraine marks the end of the post-Cold War era, Fukuyama believes that it is a wake-up call for the West to rekindle the spirit of 1989, while Gray argues that the triumph of liberalism is far from inevitable.
About Intelligence Squared:
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world.
Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Click here to subscribe on Apple Podcasts and receive our audio podcasts as soon as they are released: apple.co/3nKUHV4
It is shocking how wrong both of these heavyweights were on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Embarrassing really.
So true
They are already part of propaganda machine
Politics isn't really about what is morally right or wrong. It's about who has the most money, power, and the ability to unalive anyone. That is the very sad human condition we find ourselves in.🙄 They know the people know that the decent and benevolent public image they portray to the public is just a big laughable charade. So people in power want us to know who has the monopoly of force and violence.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
The Liberalism that Fukuyama described is rotting.
At least in Germany
@@marctwain8273 definitely here in London. It looks like Mogadishu now.
Fukuyama never said that liberalism would not suffer setbacks.
You see a new generation of politicians beginning to walk away from it. Though I think we got neoliberalism instead of classic liberalism.
@@trogdortpennypacker6160 what is the difference between
Neoliberalism and classic liberalism?
If people understood "postmodernism" (which has deconstructed everything social, especially liberalism), then what liberalism is today would become clearer.
What's sad is that most disciplines overcame the linguistic turn and began a course correction, but it looks to be permanently stuck in our culture now, dissolving the cultures that made liberalism happen in the first place, allowing totalitarianism and barbaric violence to flourish in its place.
Post modernism is a cancer that is slowly destroying civilization.
I’m curious about your reading of postmodernism here. Remember that the defining characteristic that Lyotard used in “The Postmodern Condition,” which brought the term postmodernism from art criticism to the social sphere, is “incredulity toward metanarratives” or the grand narratives that were so important to modernism. I think, if we take both these speakers’ point of agreement that liberalism is about a society of individuals who can’t necessarily agree completely on first principles and how to manage that, then an incredulity toward metanarratives could easily be a great helper to that project because it could liberate us from the tribal, conflicting grand narratives about the world from different traditions through skepticism regarding all of them. As a bit of evidence, I would posit that an incredulity toward some of the Abrahamic faiths’ metanarratives that suggest homosexuality is wrong/should be legally/societally disallowed has led to an increase in the liberal rights of gay people in many liberal nations, and all this occurred in the post-modern era.
@@dylanwright4094The OP’s comment is misguided or ironic because post-modernism is deeply inscribed into the speakers’ worldviews. They championed the Civil Rights movement not just for its virtues, but as an example of a post-modern liberal state correcting itself in-line to its core values: a specific type of universality. Their critique of the fascist right and ultra-progressives was they’ve thrown away universality AND post-modernism in favor of a ridged view of history and social change - they’ve shed skepticism of their own narratives, which is antithetical to postmodernist thought itself. Their prescriptions were basically begging those groups to readopt postmodernism.
I think OP is just saying s**t
@@Existential8Ball @dylanwright4904 2 brilliant comments
Kind of nonsense without reality.
What free election? Donors decide results. What free speech? Universities are targetted for their analysis and media serve arms manufacturers.
Both "opponents" are largely the same. Both are very keen at pointing out the flaws of "autocracies", but are blind to the same the flaws in "liberal democracies".
Prof John Gray’s wisdom rarely disappoints, many insightful points here
Evident-free accusation of China's mistreatment of minorities is not wisdom.
Yeah would have thought the same myself. Appearing at an event with a fascist like Peter Thiel made me wonder about him. Also ro hear him saying support for the Palestinians is is a manifestation of liberal delusion and that the Israelis are waging war within the bounds of international law. Whatever he has to say about barbarism rings a bit hollow.
Ukraine is winning? Really?
"many insightful points here". Really? Any points which are different from MSM?
"if Jelzin hadn't nominated a young KGB officer ..." how two elderly gentlemen chat away at the pub.
He had no other choice after the 1990s, when the U.S. administration and its 'poodles' chose to pick over the carcass of Russia's remains and rejected any overtures of a mutually beneficial economic future for all of Europe. They wanted, and still want, to be the unilateral ruler of the global world order. It's all there in Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard. But it's important to see the analysis and dissection of that book in, 'Ukraine: Zbig's Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated' by Natylie Baldwin & Kermit Heartstrong (2016), which shows how deeply misled we have all been on the real reasons for the current conflict: Some, like the 'Neo-Cons' in the U.S. wanted it this way.
@@StephenSeabird That is absolutely not the reason why he chose Putin lol. It's not even in the top 3. There was a power struggle between the oligarchs and the so called "Elzin's family" and Putin was a good pick for everyone's interests. Or so they thought lol, didn't turn out quite the way they anticipated.
If only Gorbachev was not elected... What are you talking about!!
@@StephenSeabirdYeltsin appointed pootin purely for the promise that pootin would protect his family from investigation and reprisals.
Why is fukuyama still relevant? He showed himself as a fool.
The establishment is deeply devoted to their fools.
Really, really great discussion. Thank you.
Fukuyama should talk with dugin but that'd never happen cause the "liberal" world isn't liberal at all.
The fundamental assumptions of liberalism lead to its downfall. It's inevitable. It's not the only example of this sort either, in fact, often the end of a thing is built into its very being.
That would be an interesting clash to watch!
@@raphaelreichmannrolim25 ikr
🎯
There is a tvo discussion between Dugin, Fukuyama and Ivan Krastev moderated by Steve Paikin. It's on youtube just google it.
@@zolandia5262 3mins in and it's already a blast! Let's see how it goes, this thing needs to be more famous
43:17 -> we already are living in a society where predation is the primary means of amassing wealth
You don't understand the world pre-1945 if you think that something like Amazon paying $15.00 an hour without benefits is the "predation" they are talking about.
This is a quote from Charles Trevelyan, the Assistant Secretary to the British Treasury during the Irish Potato Famine: "The only way to prevent the [Irish] from becoming habitually dependent on Government is to bring the operation of natural causes to bear upon them. The great evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people."
He saw the famine as a "corrective measure" in the market that would lead to economic improvement through "natural causes." That's the kind of "predation" they're talking about a return to.
And power. Don't matter what side you're on.
You primarily acquired your wealth through predation?
No. Value creation is the primary means of amassing wealth.
@@KendraAndTheLaw unproductive labor, the labor that facilitates the process of value production, has always been a primary job of the predatory class: landholders, slavers and so on.
I still agree with Patrick Deneen's assessment that liberalism fails when it succeeds because it cannot tolerate any dissent from their brand of individualism. When liberal individualism is fully implemented, it isolates individuals at the expense of the human reality of community bonds. To prove this, I can provide thousands of examples where school communities' norms and commitments are destroyed to accommodate, one or two solipsistic individuals who expect maximally diversified utilitarian individualism, each with their own self-actualizing synthetic one-person-culture acquired from a marketplace of trends - the government were supposed to protect the community, not the solipsist. These trends are presented and sold as if it is more optimal, but in fact, they result in a pull toward non-human, amoral, mechanistic optimization, similar to the interactions of single-celled organisms. This leaves individuals acting like mechanistically optimized organisms, such as bacteria only able to replicate genetic syntax, rather than consciousness, meaning-perceiving and meaning-creating human beings. (Being conscious and perceiving and creating meaning are all equally important and liberalism therefore can be either fundamentally solipsistic in its individualism or be fundamentally part of a community of other minds.) Additionally, I caution against Fukuyama's notion of individualism and its universality. It has never been a reality outside of individual holistic socialised experience, which inherently considers the life-giving community that practically and always sustains humane existence - except if you want to implement Huxley's "Brave New World".
individualism is not isolotianism, its based on voluntary interactions vs collectivism where asotiations are designated and not chosen.
Yes, they want Brave New World
i think the analogies to single-celled organisms and to huxley's novel demonstrate a slight failure of imagination, which is to say, there is no stark set of clearly distinct alternatives. rather, what we have is a highly speculative calculus of social and moral priorities, and we have also the difficult-to-parse consequences of various methods/policies used in that calculus.
in some ways, i believe that 'humanity will out' -- though i'm unable to define humanity, i believe that we are in some ways fundamentally immutable, at least when viewed more closely than at an evolutionary scale. the point of that being, i wouldn't worry so much about long term dystopian futures.
i agree that liberalism fails, but perhaps for different reasons. in any case, there are certainly many kinds of practiced liberalism and no clear stasis even within specific examples. what the government is supposed to do, what constitutes an individual, and what rights we assign them--these are all always in flux, if sometimes only subtly.
i haven't finished the video, so perhaps replying was premature, still i felt compelled...
@@fontforward rights are not "assigned" they are recocnized, this is key to understanding classical liberalism and individualism, human right preceed the state, the state serves the people and should defend such rights , when the state is violating these rights what you have is collectivism, socialism ore whatever name it wears currently
@@matanga69 i suppose i would agree that the state doesn't assign people rights, but neither are rights inherent to being. rights, just like any concept, only exist insofar as humans enact them
edit: i should have also pointed out that every state, no matter the ideological underpinning, has in some degree or other violated the "rights" of its citizens, of course depending on how those rights are conceived
We are living in post-liberal democracy.
Excellent discussion!
A lot of right-wing political foundational assumptions shared by the speakers -- much repeting of Western propaganda and Western cheerleading.
Could you explain it?
What do you expect.
if you think this is mostly right wing, you must have some pretty skewed politics.
@@ziyu8061 Consider the nonsense they're repeating about Russia, Putin and Ukraine. The US set Ukraine up as a patsy in proxy war to weaken Russia and overthrow Putin -- a brilliant and successful leader, who has beat the crap out of NATO and Russia's economy is doing great. But since Putin stood up to America, they have the population believing he's Hitler, as they do anyone who stands up to them. Now listen again to what the two establishment hacks here are saying and predicting about the war.
The interviewer's faith in the Western alliance vis a vis Ukraine is touching, if rather naive.
FF made a great splash with "the End" and now it's going into that great dustbin of great ideas that people forgot. I'm sure it's not a great feeling to see your lifes' seminal work begin to dissolve before your eyes, so I can sympathize with FF, and I understand that he might be a bit off-kilter because of it. This might explain how he can promote a scenario where a Ukraine victory might lead to a favourable outcome. Ignoring the obvious catastrophe of engaging with nuclear weapons he supposes that the Russians will simply depose Putin and carry on in a recalcitrant fashion. Oh the incredible hubris !!! Yes, just as we've predicted the natural outcomes of our former endeavors to effect regime changes, we should trust our good judgement and give Russian society a good shake and expect it to settle down to playing ball with us. I am humbled by the deconstruction of what I had assumed to be an intelligent social critic.
That's whig history in a nutshell.
Don’t repost an old discussion, have them both come back and let’s hear what they have to say two years on!
Wonderful conversation
wait, isnt fukuyama obsolete already?!
The fact that nowadays someone still invites and questions Francis Fukuyama, author of the irrational concept of the "end of history", shows how worthless social science is. His ideas and predictions have turned out to be total nonsense and he still comments on events and some twats listen to it.
Fukuyama is not a deep thinker, but a simplifying thinker.
26:00 On that point, "tactical nukes" seem to serve a similar purpose to strategic nuclear weapons: that is, they're political rather than practical. First, Russian war infrastructure has depended on capturing existing Ukrainian infrastructure to advance, and then it digs in, and so it can't effectively advance and defend territory that it hits so hard as to evaporate the infrastructure. But second, the relatively small yield of tactical nuclear weapons is such that, if the Russians really wanted to do that job, conventional weapons would seem sufficient, without locally irradiating the area so that in the first 48 hours after striking, their own troops can't advance on that zone without getting sick, and without the political consequence of escalating the entire conflict and likely bringing NATO directly in with a conventional response. That does not mean that Russia may never use them, only that their real purpose is to make threats about no-fly zones, and it would be a very bad idea to actually hit anything with them that the Russians plan to take.
Liberalism died the day corporates had equal rights as individuals.
nice point
"Corporations might be people, but they aren't Americans." -Jon Stewart
I'm pretty sure that happened during roughly the same time liberalism thrived. But it may well be society pays them too much respect, whereas we used to have other role models.
@@baigandinel7956 not really it was during a period of "spoilsmen" when corporations were grabbing lands rights for pennies, bribing politicians for favours, tarriff, corruption was at a peak.
@tylert9875 that late you think? I think there's probably alot of things you can argue that happened 40 years before that.
I have one simple question for Mr Fukuyama:
How much real money is required per capita from tax payers, not from printing money, in order his ideas to be implemented?
In my calculations its 80% tax levy is required
Because Israel is so wonderful an example of liberal democracy!
Now ye are all in front! Remember thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee, and thy shared Feet. From here!
Gives me the impression that Fukushima is thanking with his feet...
Who exactly is Fukushima? And what exactly does "thanking with his feet" mean?
@@jasongray4517
Writing at my cellphone, didn't help. Not checking what I wrote made it worst. English is not my first language.
I wanted to write Fukuyama. He made a comment about the succesful liberal societies linking with the emigration. In his opinion the direction of their feet tells you about their opinion about the liberalism. It is so shallow though. He is talking more about materialism and less or nothing about the values it the virtue's. That why I said ...he is thinking with his feet.
Thank you.
Seems like fukuyama joined Harvard through the DEI quota haha
The flaw in Fukuyama's thought is the assumption that economic growth can be managed so 'EVERYONE' gets a little richer. That is not the case in the American economy. The 'RICH' don't pay any reasonable share of taxes, and the larger the corporations the less they pay with quite a few paying nothing. Meanwhile, Repubs bust unions, the same corporations paying no taxes are protected by Repubs with rRump promising more cuts, while the workers and everyone else in the lower 80% of the population get negligible shares of the 'economy growth'. That is why the Repubs don't want anything about Karl Marx's economic theory taught in American schools!
I see where the publication date of this upload suggested a recency that is not warranted -- no wonder some of the interviewer's and Fukayama's statements come off as ridiculous
Left-liberalism is the relevant transformation that reflects the comprehensive cultural term of those forces that used to push for socialist state economics. It is the liberalism of the post-economic Left and has fused easily with neoconservatism in all things foreign policy, which is where corporatism has been reintroduced as the modern expression of neoliberalism.
Safe and effective😂
Please define liberalism! Is neoliberalism liberalism? Is capitalism liberalism? What if neoliberalism and capitalism appear to be at odds with democracy, as is turning out to be the case more and more?
Introducing unfamiliar ways of speaking unto many but yet is clear as water unto Whom BELONGS? Gratitude and Honor will find as commanded belongs.
To describe the influx of immigrants as a "positive vote for liberal democracy" then you have to explain why the first thing "these voters with their feet" do when they get access to material benefits within liberal democracies, is to consume and implement a non-liberal regime in all their immigrant communities.
Nope. Your argument is still siding with their's. Try this...To describe the influx of immigrants as a "positive vote for liberal democracy" then you are basically turning your cheek at the reasons why they are fleeing their own countries. I don't even want to go into why they couldn't or wouldn't dig deeper at this sort of argument but this entire talk was lacking any 'real' substance. Also, poor countries don't have free and fair elections because of corruption influenced by Western governments in order to implement hegemony and Western corporations in order to extract resources. Western countries also don't have free elections because the people lack political analysis and are easily swayed by smooth talkers who are bought and paid for by the same corporations who corrupt poorer countries. What happens everywhere else happens in the West except we get a softer version of it.
Because people want their cake and to eat it
Citation needed. Isn't the first thing most immigrant families do find employment?
Come in front of the SON OF MAN. Remind and comes with comfort. Without being offended unto one another. Together!
Some good quotes on liberalism: "Liberalism is the politics of getting rid of politics" - Carl Schmitt. "Liberalism is an edifice behind which there is no building" - Benito Mussolini. "Liberalism regards as sacred the right of everyone, however humble, odd, or inarticulate, to criticize the government, including the man at the top" - Leo Strauss.
based
“Conflicts of toleration” and concern for illiberalism within small communities with raising children denied information hence ability to think freely… maybe we need to look at levels of war with tactical, operational, strategic. While Dave Snowden believes such to be fractal, I think this grossly wrong. Only a few things may be fractal in this sense. You can be liberal at a national level tolerant of multiple groups within the nation while inside the groups can be illiberal. And we’re ok as the fundamental goal of avoiding the violence on a grand scale is met. Yes, there may be a ‘violence’ imposed in the denials of raising the child, but such really cannot be avoided while such is a small cost to avoiding the violence between either state and group or group to group.
Clarity and coherence concerning all thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee, and thy shared Feet resting upon the Footstool all dry grounds nor the world. Creation come HERE in front and remind! LORD without thy shared "i" AM none exist in front of thee!
Fukuyama says he is pessimistic about the future of liberalism because Russia invaded Ukraine, but he is optimistic about liberalism when America invades countries. Fukuyama was a leading supporter of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. Genocide and destruction is liberalism? In his philosophy liberalism includes the right to invade by certain powers.
Both speakers claim that Judo Christian tradition gave birth to liberalism. Russia too is Judo Christian but it gave birth to Bolshevism. Philosopher Bertrand Russell associates communism with Judo Christianity. So which is it: liberalism or communism? Russell was a true liberal with a brain power of a thousand Fukuyamas and Grays.
Fukuyama says end history means people want to live in western Europe and America. That is not true. Most people want to live in their own countries. That is why imperialists bomb countries to force people leave their countries.
Fukuyama and Gray talk as if they are politicians running for office. I wasted 20 minutes on this video.
London as Das Kapital was written there
Well said!
thanks, you just saved my time, I was at 20min also !
Everytime Gray starts making a compelling point against the neo-liberal orthodoxy the moderator interrupts him to change the topic. Don't know why anyone would listen to Fukuyama anymore after he's been proven emphatically wrong but the moderator still drinks the koolaid. Also she kept trying to drag social media into the debate for some reason.
Liberalism never survived Romanticism with its divided literatures, and patriotism of the 18th century. It sustains a goal but has been transformed routinely. The latest assaults of social media take discussion to the depths of tribalism.
Students shared "i" AM command all the Gods of Men in front? Students shared "i" AM will say, Lord can't exist! Why? Same with all our names! Well said!
Angels who persevere and heard the WORD will say, What is Fear? Fear HIM! Who love with patience? Yes, likewise if denied. Love thee enough to DEPART FROM thee!
Thank you ❤ I appreciate that you did not present liberalism as synonymous with democracy, along an erroneous continuum from left-liberalism-democracy to right-conservatism-authoritarianism/fascism. We need liberalism and conservatism in a democracy. Neither should be a dirty word. We need fair, reasonable, good faith definitions of conservatism too. Tolerance of meaningful liberal change and meaningful conservative preservation, in balance, nourishes democracy. What is meaningful? To decide that, we need to debate in good faith and find middle ground to guard against extremes. The US Constitution was designed to preserve what is meaningful in a democracy while also being open to meaningful change through amendment. One last thought. Children need decision making by their parents with a gradual move toward autonomy. Conservative or liberal parents may do a disservice to their children by enforcing their ideology and looking down their noses at children who dissent. William Penn wrote: Obedience without liberty is slavery. Liberty without obedience is confusion. Our democracy and children are vulnerable to both.
It's an idiocracy
Oh man, Foreigners commenting on US culture war issues is often so cringe. This woman almost undoubtedly has a one-sided and/or goofy view of things like police shootings and school curriculum in the US.
Two mythical statistical beasts were mentioned, one after the other. For eg, alleged liberals believe a massively disproportionate number of black men are shot by police. Journalists and intellectuals often believe this without question. Questioning such myths and producing evidence to poke such 'liberals' inevitably leads to being attacked by the 'liberal society and those 'liberal' journalists and intellectuals will not come to your aid. . We continue to ignore this cowardice and we continue not to challenge the likes of the boob who's hosting this talk.
Like too many people, Fukuyama is confused between liberalism and what people actually do in its name. Few people oppose liberal values (freedom, democracy, rule of law) but most people - especially in developing countries - oppose efforts to expand US/ Western dominance in the name of liberalism. Nobody want their countries be bombed, attacked, sanctioned on the pretext that there is lack of freedom, however true it may be. Historical record does not support the claim that the US and the West adhere to liberal values, just look at their relations with Pinochet, Marcos, Saudi family etc. or how the US defies the UN Law on Sea, the Int' Criminal Court etc. or how the US imposed anti-WTO tariffs on China (and even Canada). Liberalism is not wrong, but people who think the West is acting out of liberalism are wrong.
none of which is what Fukuyama is talking about. He does point out issues with the neo-liberal economic policies (Freidman and the Chicago school) and implemented by Reagan and Thatcher which led to huge inequalities which could be addressed by policy. And its not just US centric. Fukuyama's is talking about liberal democratic governments, with independent judiciary, freedom of speech and market based economy. Any alternative is essentially authoritative. And plenty of those societies have much higher inequality.
You are mixing things. U.S. sovereignty, U.S. Security, Western security, international security, neo-liberalism and capital expansion, corporatism, etc etc.
It's not just one thing. If only it were that simple.
@@peterkratoska4524Agree neoliberalism has been a disaster but you’re both wrong the issue is Western imperialism. Most of the non Western world hates the US/West due to imperialism not liberalism.
Just listen to these clowns talking about how people don’t want to move to China or Russia but to liberal societies (US/West) without mention of all the coups/ assassinations /wars (causing refugees) the West has caused.
All the expats I know livening in China & Russia are screaming to get the hell out of the West and move over to those countries. Almost no homeless/ both 90%+ homeownership rates/ lower taxes and higher growth than in the West.
@@cocosocialistrat8979 imperialism is how the west got rich and took over the world but it also led (inadvertently to the spread of democracy, the industrial and scientific revolution). And btw Rusia was also a colonial power, it was a land empire rather than naval. As was China, as Im sure Buryats, Dagestanis, Georgians, Siberians, and Tibetans, Uighurs etc know.
Yes, Im sure everyone is flocking to China to their surveiillance state, and to Russia where half the country side have no flush toilets.
Homeless? That is the least of their problems as the murderers and rapists who were accepted into the army and are now pardoned and returning back (with even violence).
You forgot the millions of young and capable Russians who left in the first 2 yrs.
Your comment is risible.
Another Ruski User. A failed state temporarily surviving on barter of discounted oil
11:21 Also that "nationalism" as a reason for liberalism solving the problem frames the issue incorrectly. Nationalism only occured in the two states which had not been a nation state before. But devided city- annex regional states. Germany and Italy.
The unification made the people feel stronger. Especially because they had been occupied by Napoleon in the 18th century. Preventing a new loss was the main motivation for it.
After loosing the second world war, obviously the nationalist fire was smuthered. So 'liberalism' was not the choice of any rational decission. But a default outcome. Then supported by growing wealth thanks to economic innovation and thus delivering more equality to be satisfied with. Nothing of that was the product of a smart decission or philosophy.
A student shared "i" AM will say, longing to LEARN. What is decision and philosophy?
Beloved remember thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee! And remember thy FEET is shared Feet! Shared "i" AM come forth!
This is a historical. Nationalism arose in France when the germanic section of the society supported the monarchy and aristocratic privileges, while the bourgeoisie and the peasantry wanted a popular republic ruled by the nationals.
If geopolitics is poker,
Fukuyama is a bluffer
Gray is not
I'd like you to invite Prof. Dan Schueftan chairman of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa, Israel. A brilliant mind and with a great sense of humour!
How old is this?
March 2022
@@kurisensei Thanks! That explains a lot. 🙏🙏
@@cstone3178explains the masks 😂😷
Beloved some will say, there's a New Table made from a hand without blood stains upon HIS hand. Resting upon SUSTAINED! For all the RENOWNED can put upon the NEW Table! Together! Likewise the NEW Table knows? Can be kept nor needed to be reminded and comes with comfort! Never will hearkened their shared Hearts!
Beloved imagine thy own hands punching thy own face day and night!
How else? Is like what is You? Without the shared "i" AM You!
Fukuyama is insightful and lucid
26:14 "I do not favour a no fly zone because that could lead to nuclear war" fine, Mearsheimer with long words. Give Putin some of your country.
I wouldn't blame liberalism itself for today's problems, the real culprit is neoliberalism. When peoples basic needs are taken care of they tend to avoid ideologies like religion, nationalism, and facism. It's honestly not that complicated.
I think neolibralism is the cause of the culture wars, because its core ideology is to promote competition rather than encouraging people to group together.
Bro they are the same thing
What exactly is neoliberalism?
So the ideological and political framework has nothing to do with what we have today?
The main tenants of liberalism are: free will, atomistic individualism, private property and separation of powers under a competitive multi-party system.
You reason like a child.
"Rule of law is still very powerful; Trump was not allowed to do a lot of the things he wanted to because you had jurists and Judges that wouldn't let him do that..."
2 years later: Not anymore...Project 2025 here it comes supported by Supreme Judges.
Shared "i" AM come forth!
Does anyone know the name of the moderator? I thought she was incredibly intelligent
Helen Lewis
@@conorboyle5954 thanks!
Sorry....had to stop listening after 10 mins....so naive .....so many blindspots...so shallow concerning economic realities for the people on the ground.
Does FF believe in the Easter bunny?
Good discussion. It gives me a lot to think about. I'm glad the host began by asking Fukuyama to define liberalism. I'm also glad Gray challenged Fukuyama's response. I need to read The End of History, because people keep citing it.
This is a purely "intellectual" exercise, dealing purely in abstract ideas and ideals. The whole premise of the debate is so childish. We here have these two gentlemen, who instead of talking about the actual concrete processes and actions in the actual living breathing world, instead talk about high ideals and purely metaphysical arguments and counter arguments. The burden of history and ideas is bending the spines of these "intellectuals". Dude! Talk about the real actual problems and issues and then talk about what is your idea and ideals for ACTION to deal about them.
Liberalism didn't emerge because locke or mill or some intellectual came up with "ideas", liberalism emerged as a set of solutions to actual real world problems and they did work at that time.
I unfortunately don't know how to put it, but this debate is so useless. Political philosophy can't arise as mere abstract ideas that chart out a course for a better or utopian society, mere ideas are actually not that powerful. Political philosophy should arise as a set of coherent proposed actions, which are empirical and pragmatic, in order to accomplish some sort of handling of real world problems.
It is so surreal to watch these "intellectuals" being so chained to centuries old abstractions and conceptions, it is quite religious in its nature, they do worship the ideas proposed centuries ago as sacrosanct, as THE truth and something devine.
Break free from the shackles of tradition, think pragmatically and only pragmatically, think over and beyond "liberalism". Idealistic philosophy grow out of pragmatic decisions that work in the actual world. Just mere ideas with theoretical clarity and precision of Euclidean geometry doesn't necessarily work, world is not a theoretical enterprise, people are motivated by real world concrete changes not mere ideas.
Yup. This is what happens when intellectuals are too busy breathing in their own farts inside a university classroom. Very removed from and blind to reality
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy based upon the mistaken premise that abstract ideas/ideals somehow take away from dealing with practical concerns. On the most basic level, theories usually do one of two things. The first is try to explain how something works by ascertaining the abstract processes or principles that take place. Science, in this capacity, does a lot of theorizing of this kind but philosophy often does the same thing (science was born out of philosophy and is in many ways a subfield of it). Another kind of theorizing aims to develop principles and ideals we would want to live by or how society ought to live by. That usually concerns ethics and moral philosophy, and the latter often concerns political philosophy. The constitution of the USA is a codification of many abstract ideas and principles upon which the whole practical concerns of government is constrained by. One can also argue that practical concerns need to be reined in by moral and political principles for them to be legitimate. Abstract ideals are the metrics we use to judge practical solutions. When we say some policy is "good" we usually have some intuitive abstract ideal that we appeal to like this policy increases economic equality or this policy increased "positive liberty" for poorer people. Many people do not realize they appeal to a set of abstract values and do not know how to critically evaluate them, yet they nonetheless use them to evaluate whether something is good or successful. Everyone appeals to these abstract ideals whenever they make a moral or political judgement (even if they do not explicitly do so). Someone who does not like liberalism is someone who critiques the values/principles they hold to be dear, which in turn shapes the kind of practical solutions we should promote since we use those values to judge and consider different practical solutions. We do these kinds of appeal to abstract principles in our judgements all the time on practical concerns.
John gray has mentioned multiple times that liberalism is a historical accident that emerged due to problems of the time, especially religious wars of Europe. He literally said this in his opening statement. Another low IQ kashmiri.
@@philosonic Yes but to solve a problem, you have to start by assessing the problem, and the processes involved in creating that problem. You don't just stick a label on it and say, that is because they believe this or that. It is also what they don't believe, that is good, that there forefathers believed. The problem as i see it is open borders, justified by " Diversity, Equality and Inclusion. and Lies. Or as Trump would put it, fake news. Fake politicians, who say they have the interests of the people at heart, but don't.
It;s also two ultra liberals talking about Liberalism, pretending that they disagree. I listened to it while cooking dinner and it was all just waffle. Put a communist up there, put someone from the dissadent Right up there. Have an actual argument or disacussion. Instead John Grey takes a position one milimeter to the right of Francis and than they talk about things they are comfortable with. And the solution, more Liberalism. I hope the entrance fee wasen't too high.
This is way too west centric ... No counter point at all. If you put Israel in place of Russia ... You can say the same about democracy, except if there is a problem, you will hear a shitload of rhetoric ... Thats why they skipped all that in the iraq war ... So come on, west had a good run ...
sure it had a good run, its still where people want to go. I don't see immigrants wanting to go to China, Russia, Saudi, etc
Discussion on liberalism thrown under the stupid usual "bus" of "condeming Putin".
Very ridiculous ...
And missed the real point.
A shame...
Russia paying a heavy price? Last I heard Ukraine had heavier losses and less troops to call up
This aged hilariously bad
why?
Ahhh yes, Fukuyama, one of the wrongest intellectuals alive
Wrong according to who, you ?
I have to say, he's pretty much bang on everything, in this discussion. For some reason people tie being wrong to the title of his book "end of history" which only relates to the phrase that Marx used, and of course it was no such thing. Bang on about neo-liberalism, also the intolerance of wokeness etc.
As far as the most desirable political state, it still is a democratic liberal society with independent judiciary, free speech, and transparency in government. Its also demonstrated by the way people vote with their feet, these are the places they go.
@@peterkratoska4524people vote with their feet even when their country is subjugated by a stronger one? I started to read his famous book and it was one of the stupidest pieces of writing I ever engaged with.
@@lalaboards Accordding to facts; where's my life of boredom and opulence ?
The Secular Political State is the death of wisdom. When man tries to replace the guidance of Spirit-God, received as wisdom, with his own (limited) egoistic perception of what constitutes right or wrong action, he has no certainty that justice and truth will prevail in all human decisions. When wisdom is absent, ignorant man is playing God. It's like throwing dice and expecting the right combination or result everytime. You might as well prepare to expect misery as your reward as well.
There is no alternative to wisdom. And if we wish to make sound judgements everytime, communion with God is essential.
May wisdom prevail.🙏
Gray sounds like an “existentialist” 😊
Good
Whats the name of the Host ? She seems the fastest speaker of words ____ Speed of words.
very inspiring and of course quite frightening. Thank you
Why frightening?
It seems to me like its all a balance. Take any idea and stretch it out without any tempering influences and you end up in a bad place.
The problem is things are always changing and the balance point is always shifting. So how do we create institutions and social norms that do that better. Maybe humanity isn't up to that challenge and its humanity that needs the upgrade, as scary as that project might be.
Why marvel?
I admire John very much but he seems less informed on the issue of controversies and side efffects of the mRNA-vaccines.
Come with thy confidence to approach!
Is history revived ?
Rest from thy labor truly follows them. Shared "i" AM come forth! Unseen nor seen.
“Nuke-ular” seriously?
One of these guys keeps calling books "BUUUKS", you're gonna have to deal with some unique pronunciations.
Through a simple lens, liberalism is freedom aka the set of negative rights we understand such as freedom from enslavement, freedom from violence, freedom from unfair trials.
Thereafter some people (we know who) dreamt up some positive rights (freedom to have an iphone, freedom to not work, freedom to take other peoples stuff under the guise of redistrubutive taxes). They could have used another new word to describe their ideology but they instead chose to hijack a word that was already clearly understood. We know that side of the political spectrum specialise in the manipulation of language. Orwell taught us that.
We now find ourselves in the difficult situation of having logomachic debates because of the dishonesty of those that want to claim to be liberals but are not.
Orwell was all about positive rights. He favored censorship of political opposition and supported forced conscription along with state intervention in the economy to prevent the individual activities of the property owner from harming the liberal order.
I don't know why you keep citing people who disliked and actively blamed the so-called classical liberals for the rise of fascism and communism.
Life itself is a basic human right
Living among these REBELLIOUS! Specially my little precious treasures SONS AND DAUGHTERS! Angels who persevere and heard the WORD. Lord, thy shared "i" AM HOSTS keepers thy MEEKS. Have been in deep sleep! Results ye see! Upon all thy dry grounds.
As a citizen of the “ The greatest purveyor of violence in the world“, the US empire, and the greatest promoter of so-called liberalism I call BS on this self-serving discussion.
46:25 No one in Latin America move to Cube. No one in Africa move to Somalia
Angels who persevere and heard the WORD will say, what should the SON OF MAN should do? Time sent forth! Before HE will make HIS HANDS. Be made NEW hands
In front of WHO love with patience, mercy, and grace! Yes, HIS Feet resting upon "DO NO MORE"! Righteous JUDGMENT AND JUSTICE sitteth. Humility
MIGRATION: One of the main challenges to Liberal Democracy is DEMOGRAPHICS, because those who have the most children, will eventually Govern, yet we all know the world is OVER-POPULATED...hence the MIGRANT CRISIS of influx of people into (former) Liberal Countries that will pose an enemy further down the line. From sunny liberal & also conservative "multi-cultural Constitutionally Democratic" South Africa. If ever a country had all the challenges of the World in 1 Country it is South Africa.
we already are living in a society where predation is the primary means of amassing wealth.
Who is God? Without the "i" AM?
this is pretty shallow
1:20:12 the problem is who define what hate speech is? In the UK a lot of people have been put in prison for sharing a meme that someone else felt it was hate speech. So,
Around 59:45 Gray makes a very incisive point about wokeism.
weird discussion on something that doesn't exist - we have neoliberalism not liberalism.
...
This is why liberalism will end. The best it has to offer is people like you whereas other ideologies attract competence.
@@futures2247 define neoliberalism
@@matanga69 privatisation, deregulation, austerity, individualism and the craziness of 'homoeconomicus' or economic man an awful one dimensional view of human beings as greedy, self interested, maximisers of personal gain and this is something to be celebrated and encouraged at every opportunity - it all grew out of the work of Mises and Hayek and was well supported and promoted by the powerful for obvious reasons but they managed to sell it as trickle down or as I see it piss on economics. Useful new book by Monbiot and Hutchison called the invisible doctrine - really useful book
You need some education. I bet you are a Trump supporter.
This discussion is beyond your comprehension
Listening to these two in July 2024, two years and four months further along in the Ukraine war, makes for guffaws at the volume of a Taylor Swift concert.
Who else read "Fukuyama is ghay"?
True