In 1992, yankee political thinker, Francis Fukuyama, discharged his notorious work "The finish of History and therefore the Last Man", tilt that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is basically at AN finish, with the planet selecting liberal democracy once the tip of the conflict.
Without going too so much into Fukuyama's actual argument, during this article, i might initial prefer to problematise Fukuyama's underlying assumption that 'history has ended'. Following this, I propose AN argument that Karl Marx's suggestion, that history relies upon the dialectical opposition of economic forces, may well be correct given recent history, which Marx's ideas shouldn't be merely written off simply because of the autumn of Communism.
Fukuyama's finish of History
Despite being a really conservative thinker, Fukuyama's claim is really primarily based upon a really Marxian argument. (Note: not a Marxist argument, however a Marxian argument - Marx truly explicit that "I am not a Marxist" once the injury he had seen committed on his theories in his own lifetime). Basically, Marx argued that the forward linear flight of history is that the logical results of the struggle between opposing economic forces - the house owners of the means that of production (capitalists) and therefore the employees (the proletariat).
Fukuyama's argument relies on his observation of the world political climate at the time of the autumn of the Berlin Wall and therefore the collapse of the Soviet Union and therefore the Communist form of government. He argued that the opposing philosophic forces of Communism and free enterprise resulted within the political stand-off of the conflict. once Communism fell within the late-1980s and early- to mid-1990s, this was the indication that there have been not ANy opposing philosophic forces and so that history had come back to an finish. about Fukuyama claimed.
Karl Marx and therefore the Path of History
Karl Marx claimed that the progressive, linear march of history was a results of the struggle between the employees and therefore the house owners of the means that of production. it's vital to know that Marx's work was primarily a critique of free enterprise. He recognised the huge social issues that had been caused by the economic Revolution and therefore the transition from social system to free enterprise. solely a minor portion of Marx's work concerned his ideas concerning Communism - not minor in terms of impact, however minor in terms of volume.
The vital purpose here is that Marx aligned this philosophic struggle with the march of history due for the most part to his belief that history was conjointly related to the progressive domination of 'man' (in Marx's words) over nature. At round the same time that Marx was writing, the ideas propounded by Charles Darwin were turning into the scientific and social orthodoxy of the time. These ideas had a good impact on Marx, maybe indirectly, however instead thanks to the impact and recognition of Darwin's arguments throughout society normally. The domination of 'man' over nature through technology and therefore the 'taming' of nature became a {part of} Marx's read of progress that became part of his read of history.
Fukuyama and Marx
One will see that this idea of opposing forces that make the progressive march of history within the work of Marx, is sort of similar in some ways in which to Fukuyama's plan of the 2 opposing philosophic forces of contemporary times, Communism and free enterprise. The logical conclusion for Fukuyama is that if one in all the 2 philosophic forces vanishes (in this case Communism), then there's no opposing force left to progress history. Thus, he pronounced the tip of history.
But What if Marx is Correct?
Marx's concept that there's a progressive, linear march of history culminated within the concept that free enterprise would evolve into a utopian society that he referred to as Communism. However, one in all the foremost vital elements of his argument, one that always gets unnoted, is that so as to achieve this utopia, it'd be necessary for the Capitalist system to achieve it's most economic capability. so it had been a 'natural' progression of society, a natural evolution instead of a revolution. This a {part of} Marx's work was part of his critique of free enterprise. Marx's political work concerned theorising (not doing) the transition from free enterprise to the Communist utopia and this may occur (theoretically) through skipping a number of the stages of the natural progress of history, through revolution. In alternative words, it had been a case of rushing up the evolution of society through revolution.
Now, what this truly meant was that, no matter something, free enterprise still required to achieve it's most economic capability so as for the utopia to be reached. Therefore, a revolution would mean that the operating categories would realise their own category position (as 'slaves' to the capitalists) and be able to take power once the utopia dawned.
The question to be asked is: have we tend to reached the most economic potential of Capitalism? If we've got not, was Soviet Communism, and for that matter, Chinese Communism, too premature? If the solution is affirmative, then Marx is also right. while not reaching the most economic potential of free enterprise, Communism can't be completed. during this means, it may well be argued that philosopher was correct. The collapse of the Soviet system was simply that, the collapse of a system of states that was go past a military political system. It bears very little alikeness to Marx's Utopia. thus was it truly AN experiment supported Marx's ideas and philosophy? Or was it truly a leadership supported totally different principles that recently area unit branded as Stalinist?
Conclusion
When Francis Fukuyama announced that the tip of history had been reached, he could fine are wrong. to say that history, supported opposing forces and ideologies, is over which we are going to inevitably choose liberal democracy, is also mistaken. If Communism, supported Marx's ideas, has not nevertheless even been tried, and if free enterprise has not nevertheless reached it's full economic capability, then the tip, or 'death' of history could fine be premature!
Robert encompasses a PhD in social science, specializing within the analysis of globalisation and therefore the transition from modernism to post-modernity. he's conjointly curious about public health, community resilience, environmentalism, social amendment and crusader culture. parliamentarian operates a journal in line together with his interest within the surroundings and social amendment
Post A Comment: