/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13728646]

>the end of history
Do you believe in such an idea? Do you believe in progress and a linear timeline? Or are we destined for repetition and side-stepping forever?

[Anonymous No.13728659]

>>13728646
Marx called the communist revolution the end of PREhistory.

[Anonymous No.13728679]

[Anonymous No.13728772]

Did you not get the memo. Fukuyama already proved that history ended in the early 90s.

[Anonymous No.13728780]

>>13728659
What the fuck does this mean

[Anonymous No.13728795]

The only end of history that matters is the Second Coming of Christ. Until that happens, history is going to keep churning on.

Regarding Fukuyama, keep in mind that he is, essentially, a Hegelian at heart. That's the entire idea behind him declaring the end of history; because, in his view, the world had achieved the vision Hegel set out for it in his Philosophy Of History.

[Anonymous No.13728797]

>>13728772
imagine actually believing this

[Anonymous No.13728806]

we're heading towards communism alright.
machines doing everything ranging from boring repetitive tasks to the creative tasks.
Man will be left with no dreams or aspirations, just consumption.

[Anonymous No.13728810]

>>13728646

Yes, but as an individual event that happens to you when you die.

[Anonymous No.13728815]

idk people like to bash the idea of the end of history, but as far as i can tell, Hegel was right, and the Napoleonic conquest of europe was truly the end of history. Nation-states, bureaucracy, equality before the law, these are the defining characteristics of the modern world, and the end point at which people all over the planet have set their sights. You would be hard pressed to find a single person who doesn't believe in these things these days, or a nation that doesn't strive toward them.

[Anonymous No.13728826]

>>13728795
>in his view, the world had achieved the vision Hegel set out for it in his Philosophy Of History.
He was an absolute brainlet consumed by Americanism if he couldn't at least interpret Hegel in a way that the only way we can realise and achieve freedom is in the form of a cosmopolitan state. But even that is wrong. His only line of thought was
>le ebil USSR died so = victury 4 capitalism = end of history loL! xd

[Anonymous No.13728832]

>>13728815
What about Islamic fundamentalists or traditionalist Catholics?

[Anonymous No.13728833]

>>13728815
>the Napoleonic conquest of europe was truly the end of history
Oh, yeah? What are we doing now then?
>Nation-states
>NATION-states
No, God damn it, no.

[Anonymous No.13728852]

>>13728832
The former had failed to establish a single functioning state, and have unconsciously adopted many of the features of the modern bureaucratic state anyway (such as a centralized, uniform legal code, taxation, etc). TradCaths are a tiny minority, they have as much hope of success as AnCaps.

>>13728833
Your IQ has to be at least 90 to post here.

[Anonymous No.13728860]

>>13728852
>IQ
Your age has to be at least 18 to post here.

[Anonymous No.13728870]

>>13728772
>Fukuyama
What an idiot. Predicts the entire world will rise to the level of liberal Western democracies. Wasn't that his thing? Couldn't be more wrong. Read Spengler.

[Anonymous No.13728877]

>>13728860
No, this is not an adult board. Psych.

[Anonymous No.13728878]

>>13728815
>You would be hard pressed to find a single person who doesn't believe in these things these days, or a nation that doesn't strive toward them.
That's an idiotic statement. Russia, China, Africa, the entire Middle East, every country south of the USA.

[Anonymous No.13728895]

>>13728780
It means that until the human species assumes control over itself we can't say that it really came into its own.

[Anonymous No.13728906]

>>13728878
Wow you're even dumber of the other guy.

[Anonymous No.13728939]

>>13728646
>the end of history

It's a dumb goal to even strive for. Politics should be flexible, because new problems arise constantly. Not to mention not every country needs the same type of governing policy. Even if you abolish constructs like race, nationality, and culture, you still have to account for geographical problems, like local resource distribution. Just because one political organ works in one place, doesn't mean it will in another. What we should strive for is not to fall in radical policies pitfall, and to account for globalism.

[Anonymous No.13729007]

>>13728646
eternal recurrence

[Anonymous No.13729055]

>>13728815
>imagine being so self-absorbed in your bubble that a few centuries of liberalism makes you think is the end of history.

liberalism is decaying only white people and western institutions are keeping this farce alive. Spengler was right history is cyclical.

[Anonymous No.13729061]

>>13728895
Words words words
What does it mean? What is control? 'Its own'?

[Anonymous No.13729065]

>>13729055
>history is cyclical

[Anonymous No.13729085]

>>13728646
I believe in continuous change, that matter is mortal, as far as "matter" is an ephemeral manifestation(meaning) of Mind, which is immortal (not to be confused with eternal), and dispersed beyond it's vehicles. I believe in the spirit of ages, and that there is a certain phenology, and that the evolution of mind is animated by cosmic forces, I'm an agapist. I think the maxim of recapitulation is sufficiently true for history. I believe in progress in the pragmatist sense, which is not to say that I believe material conditions progress, only the growth of mind.
I believe that Mind on Earth is currently being parasitized by a demonic cancer that binds Life to it's death, this is a big problem for the human understanding.

[Anonymous No.13729130]

>>13728895
>human species assumes control over itself
In what sense? Feudal states were still human species controlling themselves according to the will of their ruler.
That Marx take sounds like just a stupid "rational philospher" take to approve his ideology even more. Philosophers like Nietzsche and even Stirner shited on communism and socialism for having the same christian slave morality.

[Anonymous No.13729189]

>>13729061
To come into one's own means to mature. The analogy is adolescence—human prehistory, adulthood—human history.
Lack of control means that a separate economic sphere emerges which is constituted by alienated human relations, and its own laws (economic laws) begin to take control over human lives for an inhuman end (accumulation of value).
Regaining of this control means getting rid of the abstraction governing our lives and instead subjecting human production and therefore human social relations to direct, conscious control of human species.

[Anonymous No.13729223]

>>13729189
>Alienated human relation
>inhuman ends
All spooks.

[Anonymous No.13729296]

>>13729130
Communism doesn't have a morality.
There was definitely less alienation in feudalism when we consider for example the relation of a peasant to his labour or to other peasants in his village, but on the level of states it was total chaos and endless wars every time some cuck king happened to die without leaving a son behind. That's no control.

[Anonymous No.13729356]

>>13729296
>and endless wars every time some cuck king happened to die without leaving a son behind. That's no control.
What about when some meteorite hits the communist utopian earth and causes a mass famine, destroys all infrastructure and means of comunication making everyone to fight just to get the food to survive? That's no control.

>Communism doesn't have a morality
Probably not in itself, but its representatives surely do make it look like as if it is some imperative to end all class war and make the priveliged give up their rights for "the greater good". It kinda preaches on slave morality with a certain kind of mindset.

If some peasant wants to vote and impose communism so he can gain more power and live a better life, so be it, that's his will and he is using it to get in a better place. But the same mentality is applied to someone priveliged that doesnt want to give up his riches and
rights to oppress others and to be lowered down to the same level as the people who he looks down on.

[Anonymous No.13729364]

>>13728826
No one’s ever criticized him for that before. You should write a book

[Anonymous No.13729390]

>>13729364
>say stupid shit
>get shit for it
funny how that works huh

[Anonymous No.13729648]

>>13728878
>>13729055
I meant that in the sense of these things being ideals to which everyone, all over the world, strives. That they are not perfectly implemented is another matter. The point is that they have come to form a norm, a deeply ingrained expectation, and that the world largely conforms to this norm, or at least tries to. A third world country could have a corrupt bureaucracy, but it would still be a bureaucracy nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.13729715]

>>13728815
>Hegel was right, and the Napoleonic conquest of europe was truly the end of history.
I'm not familiar enough with its argument to comment much on it, but I will generally grant that some facts of human existence have changed irrevocably, and recently, comparable to e.g. the invention of agriculture. However

>Nation-states, bureaucracy, equality before the law, these are the defining characteristics of the modern world, and the end point at which people all over the planet have set their sights.

This just isn't correct, and the fact that you even think that "people all over the planet" idealize or strive towards these things or whatever is 100% of living inside of a (decaying imo but at least no longer expanding) cultural bubble.

The least controversial counterexample I can give is the rise of China. The Chinese concept of themselves as a "nation-state" is clearly different than that of the United States, partly because the latter is attempting to abolish the very concept of "nation".

As far as "equality before the law", there are serious and effective movements in several important countries to legally privilege certain favored classes of people. It is true that lip service is usually paid to "equality", but it is also true that Augustus was a monarch whether he changed the name of the Roman political entity or not.

>>13729648
>The point is that they have come to form a norm...the world largely conforms to this norm, or at least tries to
No, they don't. In general, these "corrupt third-world bureaucracies" are simply aristocracies.

[Anonymous No.13729946]

>>13729356
>What about when some meteorite hits the communist utopian earth and causes a mass famine, destroys all infrastructure and means of comunication making everyone to fight just to get the food to survive? That's no control.
Yes, a communist society can collapse if a meteorite hits the planet. Communism requires a certain level of development of the productive forces guaranteed by capitalism. If this productive power gets destroyed then the same happens with communism.

>but its representatives
Which ones? Some stupid cucks on twitter with Marx avatars?

>But the same mentality is applied to someone priveliged that doesnt want to give up his riches
I lost you there. Are you saying that communists call for the bourgeoisie to renounce their class interest? If so then that's incorrect, and anybody who says that is no communist. The bourgeoisie will be destroyed as a class forcefully, not through moral appeals to its individual members. Lenin:
>Whoever imagines that socialism can be achieved by one person convincing another, and that one a third, is at best an infant, or else a political hypocrite; and, of course, the majority of those who speak on political platforms belong to the latter category.

[Anonymous No.13730624]

>>13729946
Well my point was that society being, feudal, commie or capitalist isnt really anything "in control" since anything can literally happen and fuck up society, from enviromental damage, to kings not giving heirs etc. There are always things that are outside of our control.
>Which ones? Some stupid cucks on twitter with Marx avatars?
Kinda, yeah...
>Are you saying that communists call for the bourgeoisie to renounce their class interest? If so then that's incorrect, and anybody who says that is no communist. The bourgeoisie will be destroyed as a class forcefully, not through moral appeals to its individual members.
Thanks for the correction there, thats a whole more based take on communism imo.

[Anonymous No.13730671]

>>13730624
I was only talking about conscious control over social processes, not control over random meteorites. We tend to naturalize the laws of social life that control our lives instead of us (for example economic laws) and to make them out as no different in character than laws governing the movement of meteroites. But this is an ideological falsification.
We can work against the laws of physics as well as against the laws of economics, but the latter differ in that they're purely a product of our own social interactions. And the thesis of communism is that therefore they can be destroyed by a social act and replaced with explicit and direct use of human will.

[Anonymous No.13730773]

>>13728772
>Fukuyama

[Anonymous No.13730914]

>>13728646
Sure, either some catastrophic event will wipe us out or man will eventually transcend himself into a machine.