Francis Fukuyama said: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."
Fukuyama was wrong to announce "the end of history as such . . . the end point of mankind's ideological evolution."
But it is true that most leftists, including many of the remaining Marxists, consciously or unconsciously think of "the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." I, for one, reject that view. However, there is no denying that is the dominant ideology across the political spectrum in the global North.
On 9/22/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 4:34 PM, Bradley Bauerly wrote, quoting the
> ineffable YF:
>
> >> "We live in the post-Marxist age."
> >
> > How many times have we heard this proclaimed, or who let Fukuyama in.
>
> What does it mean? Is there no more extraction of surplus value? Is
> there no longer the relentless cheapening of commodities, the
> drumbeat of competition proclaiming "March! March!," the
> commodification of everything, the rule of money, etc.?
No.
Historical materialism, as social theory, is useful for analysis.
What I mean is that Marxism is no longer the dominant ideology of resistance to capital and the empire and that it is unlikely to make a comeback as such in the foreseeable future.
How, then, can we make historical materialism useful to people, Muslims, Chavistas, and others, who are in resistance but are not Marxists and never will be? That's the question that interests me.
> I like the use of the definite article, though - there's only one
> post-Marxist age, and we live in it! Aren't we lucky?
Keynes was premature; Khomeini was right on time. -- Yoshie