Hegel, in all his abstruse beauty, concludes that there will come a time when the great thinker that makes us, (sort of like God,) will eventually come to the ultimate settlement of thought reality, and when such a thing happens, there will be no more change, perfection having arrived. It'll be the end of history, nothing more being achievable. I refer to this as eschatology fascism, and there will be more to come on this topic in some depth as we regain our focus at this blog sometime.
Francis Fukuyama took the Hegelian approach to history and applied it to economics, finding that liberal capitalism is the ultimate system beyond which there is nothing better possible. Then the world woke up to Islam as it has always been.
Ones concept of the nature of history is ideological, even if we seldom or even never give it any thought. Muslims consider history as static, an endless replay of day one since the final revelation of the Koran. Our idiot Left dhimmi fascists are hardly anybetter, thinking that there is an end to history when all will live as happy peasants in a new and man-made Eden of multi-culti equality and clouds of pot smoke.
There are the fascist monsters on the corrupted side of conflated Left/Right who argue that there is no such thing as progress in history. The list goes on.
Regular readers here will know of our affection for V.I. Lenin, one of the great political organisers in history. He, unlike so many among us today, understood that one changes history by will, even if the conditions within history are beyond the scope of agency itself. We play the game we sit at, and we win with the hands we're dealt. History is for the making.
Below is a neat twist to Lenin. It might seem unpalatable to some that we like him. Nevertheless, effective is effective, regardless of the source.
The End of His Story
By Douglas Kern
No disembodied force of History will do our work for us; the world's future is not a straight line pointed at a certain outcome, but rather a jagged and irregular line – the line between good and evil that runs through every human heart. You might think that the events of the last seventeen years would convince nearly anyone that the human heart still has the last word over History. But Fukuyama will not surrender his cherished beliefs without a fight.
He writes: "'The End of History,' in other words, presented a kind of Marxist-Hegelian argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States."
So it's "Leninist" to apply power and will to achieve liberal democracy ahead of History's schedule. Presumably it was also "Leninist" to apply power and will toward making the Soviet Union fall ahead of schedule. In fairness, I believe that Communism was destined to collapse under the weight of its wickedness and economic ineptitude -- given enough time. But the resolve of the West determined how much of the world Communism could defile on its way down -- and how many people had to die in gulags while waiting for History to arrive. If it was "Leninist" to apply power and will toward expediting the rendezvous of the Evil Empire with the dustbin of History, then sign me up for Leninism.
Fukuyama offers no answer. Support democracy, he tells us, but not to the point that such support is expensive, or dangerous, or premature, or upsetting to other nations, or irritating to potential terrorists, or empowering to potential enemies, or overly "Leninist" in its zeal to loose the chains of the slave grinding at the mill. Is it any wonder, then, that Fukuyama's policy prescription is to take two nothings and call him in the morning? If History is inevitable, if no threat menaces us, and if energetic foreign action puts us on a par with Lenin, then doing nothing looks pretty good indeed.