On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 06:43:01AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Again, you have completely missed the point. This thread is about > the notion proposed a decade or so ago by Francis Fukuyama that > the defeat of communism by liberal capitalist democracy somehow > constituted "the end of history" because, according to Fukuyama, > there could never be a successful alternative to liberal capitalist > democracy that could challenge and replace it. I said that just > because Fukuyama couldn't conceive of such an alternative, such a > potentially successful challenge, didn't mean there would never be > one.
Actually, I believe I caught the point fully. You don't seem to grasp the argument I am making. If Fukuyama can't conceive of an alternative, HAVING THE FULL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE BASE TO DRAW UPON, then that is a strong argument for liberal capitalist democracy being the ultimate, best system. If Fukuyama uses the (to me) strange term "end of history" to say that there won't be a significantly different system than liberal capitalist democracy in the future, then there is a strong case that he is right. > To demonstrate Fukuyama's fallacious reasoning, I pointed out that > there are plenty of historical examples of similar flawed thinking, > of groups who never even questioned that their system could possibly > ever be dislodged. And I argued that your demonstration was fallacious, but you chopped that part off. > It doesn't mean that at other times there were not people with vision or > imagination, people who saw alternatives. Actually, I argue that it DOES mean that there were no people who saw superior alternatives. Otherwise, Fukuyama likely would have heard of them. > See, I'm actually on your side. Nope. While I'll not agree with what Fukuyama has been quoted as saying 100%, I think it is likely that he (or what he is quoted here as saying) is correct. Significant progress is likely in many areas (even physics still has some ways to go, for example), but in those areas people have conceived of superior systems. To disprove Fukuyama (as I understand it, not having read the book), you need to cite a system of governing a society that is both (1) significantly different than liberal capitalist democracy and (2) demonstrably superior to liberal capitalist democracy. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
