Francis Fukuyama's book 'The End of History' was certainly a product of the bourgeois triumphalism prevelant in the early 1990s. But while its silly title rightly attracted plenty of criticism, its central thesis is rather more subtle and accordingly deserves to be taken somewhat more seriously on the left.
In his own words, Fukuyama argues for 'a kind of Marxist interpretation of history that leads to a completely non-Marxist conclusion'. Basing himself on essentially the same (Hegel-derived) propositions as Marx did, he maintains that not communism but liberal democracy and free market capitalism represents the final form of human social organisation.
In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism, things certainly did seem to be heading in something like that direction. But - as Gideon Rachman points out in a recent article in the Financial Times - there is now clearly a cohesive alternative to the Fukuyama model. And it isn't one that the left should welcome, either.
Both Russia and China are developing authoritarian regimes that oversee dirigiste capitalisms. Without having thought out the question properly, it occurs to me that there does seem to be parallels in both cases with the corporatist model of Mussolini's Italy.
And I'm worried that this could prove an elephant trap for some sections of the left. For a start, there are plenty of nostalgics out there who are still well-disposed to any projects either Moscow or Beijing cares to undertake.
What's more, they are sure to point out that the alternative is untramelled neoliberalism. From there, it is an easy step to the conclusion that what Russia and China are doing is somehow historically progressive, even worthy of emulation in the developing world.
That just makes it even more important for the sane left not to lose its bearings.
Posted at 18:21, 14 January 2008
Comments (12)
who on the 'left', other than some extremely thick stalinists or maoists, believes chinese and russian capitalst dictatorships to be progressive?
is the cpb pro-beijing now???
ks
"And I'm worried that this could prove an elephant trap for some sections of the left. For a start, there are plenty of nostalgics out there who are still well-disposed to any projects either Moscow or Beijing cares to undertake."
One thing that you could poiunt out, at least in regard to China, is that it's possibly the most privatised economy on earth. the individual pays for everything, from primary school on upwards.
And if you really wanted to leap out of the elephant trap, you could point out that this level of privatisation is only possible in a dictatorship like China's.
Karl s asks, "Who on the 'left', beyond some exteremely thick stalinist or maoists, believes chinese and russian capitalist dictatorships to be progressive?'
Well, Karl, you're right and you're wrong at the same time. Yes, only Stalinist ignoramouses and reactionary buffoons like David Clark actually support present-day Russia and China...
But, unfortuantely, there are still quite a few of them about, infesting what passes for the "left" of the trade union movement. Their daily mouthpiece is the 'Morning Star', a thoroughly reactionary, anti-European, patholigically anti-Israeli and pro "my enemy's enemy" rag that, sadly is still a refection of much of the mainstream "left" in Btitain. Were that it was not so...
Nothing wrong with the Morning Star; good source of left and trade union news, gives space to diverse range of opinion, one of the few left publications to acknowledge the national question in Wales and Scotland.
Essential reading for anyone on the left in the UK in fact.
I thought the far-left of the day, regarded the Islamic World as the main defender of humanity against Imperialism. Who cares about yesterday's news?.
Sue - if you really think that then you should try meeting some more far-lefties, or even just do some basic research.
Sue's not interested in dialogue, just trolling.
Re: The End of History, I remember reading it in late 1996 and it had a very depressing impact on me. I can remember moaning about the pointlessness of things to an anarchist comrade of mine and for a very brief moment, I began thinking Tony Blair and New Labour was all that was possible. But I shook it off. Unfortunately, a lot of left academics haven't and remain haunted by the thesis - Perry Anderson being one of them.
Re: corporatism, thing is it's nothing new. Neoliberalism has bitten into most semi-colonial states and the anglophone metropolis, but on the continent and in the Far East the state, on the whole, has always and continues to play a corporatist role in the economy. It's only relatively recently that the capitalist class in these countries have become turned on to the benefits neoliberalism can bring them.
Re: Jamie, if everything has to be paid for in China, where are these "gains" of the revolution ortho-trot comrades loudly speak of?
China is a fascinating topic for discussion on the Left.
Because many on the Left opposed the Soviet repression of worker's movements and freedom in the Eastern Bloc, still later did the Left oppose the US when it invaded countries.
Most on the Left opposed the annexation of lands in the Middle East.
But those principled stances don't apply for a fair few on the Left when it comes to Tibet and China.
China can INVADE Tibet, kill chunks of the population, annex the whole country and then pour in settlers, and how do some on the Left respond?
to defend it!
you couldn't get a more illogical position.
On the one hand, it wrong for imperialist countries (or the Soviets) to invade and impose their will on other nations, and yet somehow with China that does not apply?
the defenders of China will no doubt argue that Tibet was a backward country run by a theocracy and China is improving things, but precisely those arguments are used by Western imperialists to cover up their activities in the Middle East and other countries
so you end up with people on the Left arguing it is ok to invade, annex and settler another nation (or at defensible) as long as it is "civilised" in the process?
and presumably the defenders of China's occupation of Tibet, would be content if China decided to invade and occupy an African country, in the same way it did with Tibet, and would they use the same feeble pretexts?
And that is what it comes down to the extreme irrationality, of arguing that the Western conquest of nations is wrong and yet it can be excusable if someone else does it, as China has
So until the last defender of China's occupation, annexation and settlement is vanquished from the Left, it will be a bit difficult to sell opposition to imperialism, when it is so selective and so shallow.
To Modernity: who apart from the odd Stalinist and Maoist (not many of them about these days) and the Spartacist League (who have always been soft on Stalinism as a state formation) actually support the Chinese occupation of Tibet? I've not seen in 30 years of left-wing mag-reading anyone beyond the above supporting it.
However, I've not seen much on the subject in the left-wing press. However, as too many left-wingers like to rabbit on about things without knowing much about the subjects in question, perhaps silence is better than an ill-informed piece.
Back to the main point of this thread: The main point surely here is not whether some leftist or another will be defending the lack of democratic rights in Russia and China, but whether (or when) we will find ruling-class ideologues saying that if 'we' are successfully to confront the challenge of China, then the democratic rights that we enjoy -- particularly the rights that workers have -- will have to be sacrificed 'for the common good'.
Dr Paul - how about this for an example?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/kenneth_rogoff/2008/01/workers_paradise.html
Dr Paul wrote:
I've not seen in 30 years of left-wing mag-reading anyone beyond the above supporting it.
I take your point, certainly sensible people wouldn't advocate support for the brutal and murderous policies conducted by the Chinese elite in Tibet
however, I think that is because the issue doesn't get much of a hearing
if it had or when it does, you begin to see the inconsistencies in people's thinking,
here is just one example:
"Nice try - but what a load of rubbish.
Tibet has been legally part of China since the sixteenth century. Under military and diplomatioc pressure from Britain China was forced to give autonomy in 1913, but no Chinese nationalist, not Sun Yet Sen, nor Chaing Kait Shek, nor Mao have ever recognised the 1914 Treaty of Simla -0 as it was imposed upon them by Britishh imperialism.
To this day Taiwan also claims Tibet.
Under the rule of the Dalai lama between 1913 and 1959 - so beloved of western liberals, Tibet was the most appalling obscurabtist theocracy, and widespread and chronic famine reduced the populatioon to less than two million. The country was based upon slavery, and serfdom, including appaling institionalised child slavery and abuse. Illiteracy and dirt poverty blighted every tibetan excet for the theocrats and the landlords. I am sure it gives libeerals wet dreams, but autonomus Tibet was a descent into the darkest pit of hell for the Tibetan slaves and serfs.
Under japanese occupation nothing could be done to liberate tibet, but once independence from japan was won, and a national government was consolidated in 1949, it was a natural next step to address the appalling plight of Tibet, and they started to intervene in 1950.
I repeat that Tibet was always part of China, but the disatrous autonomous reaction of the Dalai lama was fortunately ended in 1959. This involved a great deal of fighting between Tibertan as slave owners and landlords fought against the slaves and serfs who sided with the Red Army.
Under Communist rule famine was abolished, slavery was abolished, serfdom was abolished, illiteracy was eliminated, child mortality fell from just under 50%% to less than half a per cent, agricultural reform ended the dirt poverty, and the disastrous decline of the ethnic tibetan population was reversed, there are now three or four times as many ethnic Tibertans as there were in 1959, reversing over a century of falling population due to famine and diesease. What bastards those Chinese are.
Now the Free Tibet obscurantists who want to retore the theorcracy (we can see this because they tout round the latest "incarnation" of the Dalai lama) play fast and lose with the statistaics by claiming a Greater Tibet, including a number of Han Chinese provinces like Xinang that have never been autonomous and are nealy all Han.
The government of the PRC has encouraged immigration into Tibet, but has also fostered and developed the Tibetan population - and to be quite frank the period since 1959 has been the most enlightened and liberal government the Tibetans have ever known.
Tibet has of course suffered terrible crimes and excesses, but no more so than the rest of China who all suffered from the lunacies of Maoist rule.
There is no national libratioin movement in Tibet, and Tibet has never been a nation in the modern sense. Now you may think that the restoration of theocratic autocracy, and driving the tibetan society back 1000 years or more into darkness is something worth campigning for., I don't. And most noticeably no-one in Tibet seems to want that either. There is no national liberation movement.
Posted by andy newman | 00:03, 21 June 2007"
http://www.davidosler.com/2007/06/should_unions_boycott_israel.html
Bill Gates, praised China's leaders, who have mixed market economics with rigid political control. "It is a brand new form of capitalism, and as a consumer it's the best thing that ever happened," he said. (The Guardian June 15 2005)
Well worth remembering