Just finished this book

[Anonymous No.16400971]

What will be the successor of liberalism? Hard mode: refrain from suggesting fascism or Marxism (also unmitigated failures, if not worse).

[Anonymous No.16401001]

>>16400971
whatever China is doing is the future. sort of a mix between fascism and marxism sorry to upset your request to stay away from them, but that's what will happen everywhere

[Anonymous No.16401006]

A new de jure aristocracy.

What everybody needs to realize is that revolution is always destined to failure. 200+ years of revolution, and where have we wound up? With the same state we were at before the American, French, Russian Revolutions, the Revolutions of 1848, and so on. All these years later, where are we? With a small amount of people holding all the wealth and all the power. Marxism has failed. Jacobinism has failed. It's all bullshit. It will ALWAYS fail.

So, if we're doomed to a de facto aristocracy, then it SHOULD be de jure as well. Codify aristocracy into law. Give them rights and privileges, but also responsibilities and duties. It won't curb ALL their abuses of power, but it will curb a lot of them. It did for centuries. A landed gentry will abuse their power more than the unofficial aristocracy we have now.

[Anonymous No.16401015]

>>16401006
*will abuse their power LESS than the unofficial aristocracy, I mean

[Anonymous No.16401022]

>>16401001
This is correct. Authoritarian state propped capitalism that will expand chinas people and reach globally. The Chinese cheat at everything they do and economics is no exception. They manipulate their currency, prop up their own clones of companies using stolen technology, and manipulate their own people to spy on each other for social credit.

[Anonymous No.16401037]

>>16401006
the new aristocracy will consists of people like J. Bezos, E. Musk and B. Gates. yikes

[Anonymous No.16401051]

>>16400971
authoritarian "liberalism", enforcing human rights with death squads and political silencing

[Anonymous No.16401061]

>>16401037
Their descendants will be better. Just like the Hanovers improved in successive generations, after the initial Glorious Revolution. A de jure aristocracy improves with subsequent generations, as their sons and grandsons become more aware of their privileges, but also their duties and responsibilities.

[Anonymous No.16401063]

>>16400971
Id wager something like the political party mob boss system of old, where semi-ethnic clans led by charismatic individual leaders of varying degrees of authoritarianism fight amongst each other for and directed by large sums of money. Essentially mob boss crony capitalism with weird elements of the worst kind of populism. This is china and russia right now, the US soon

[Anonymous No.16401074]

>>16401001
with demographic implosion, economical stagnation and zombification of their economy in queue i doubt the han supremacy will last beyond jing pi's lifetime

[Anonymous No.16401079]

>>16401006
pure cringe /r/monarchism user
>>16401022
stop projecting

[Anonymous No.16401207]

>>16401079
>pure cringe /r/monarchism user

Do you have a BETTER idea in mind, asshole? Because it sure does fucking seem like every time we try to have a revolution for a better world, a classless world, a world where all men are equal, all men are prosperous, it gets fucked up.

We had the French Revolution. We got Napoleon. We had the Russian Revolution. We got Stalin. Do you have some secret recipe you can add to the formula of revolution that PREVENTS the revolutionary act from being taken over and stabbed in the back by an ambitious, conniving strongman? Do you have some secret plan the rest of us don't know about that will PREVENT a Napoleon or Stalin from coming to power and just reifying all the old pre-revolution hierarchies?

[Anonymous No.16401208]

>>16401207
Yes. Ai revolution

[Anonymous No.16401266]

>>16401208
Imagine being a willing slave to a literal instrument.

[Anonymous No.16401346]

>>16401207
Constant revolution. The system needs to never be seen as "stable" again because that is when groups exploit it

[Anonymous No.16401507]

>>16401207
basis sustainance with mixed economy.

libertarianism doesnt mix good with mass-owning land and infrastructure.

just make a strict mixed economy where sustainance isnt dependend on outside investors.

[Anonymous No.16401723]

>>16400971
What's the thesis of the book, anon?

[Anonymous No.16402087]

Wow, we're not living in dystopian times, noperino. Reading these comments, you sound like defeated characters in a George Orwell book.

[Anonymous No.16402094]

>>16400971
Unironically a new caliphate.

[Anonymous No.16402097]

>>16400971
Liberalism wont be replaced, it will just become more and more conservative as society becomes older.

[Anonymous No.16402115]

>>16401001
This except in America it's going to be gay and brown and will only inflect Marxism tactically

[Anonymous No.16402219]

>>16400971
Aristocracy of the soul

[Anonymous No.16402454]

>>16400971
Anarcho-Tyranny vs Authoritarian hyper capitalism.
Hyper capitalism will adopt socialist tendencies so as to ensure the plebetariat are best equipped for working and consuming.

[Anonymous No.16402487]

>>16400971
>>16400971
Postliberalism, that is a model of society that integrates and historicizes liberalism while at the same time going beyond it. At worst it will be a gay version of China.

[Anonymous No.16402497]

China but brown

[Anonymous No.16402561]

>>16401207
>classless, unhierarchial society doesn't work
wow anon you must be a genius or something, it's almost as like all neomarxist "gibs me dat for free" ideologies are not reflective of the real world and not applicable in real life!

[Anonymous No.16402567]

>>16400971
>What will be the successor of liberalism?

There won't be one. Neoliberalism is eternal

[Anonymous No.16402603]

well why has liberalism failed then?

[Anonymous No.16402628]

>>16401006
There will be every incentive for this new aristocracy to slowly whittle down their "responsibilies" while improving their own avenues for hoarding wealth and privileges. How will they be prevented from affecting legislature to their own advantage at the expense of the rest of society?

[Anonymous No.16402694]

>>16402603
it failed because it succeeded

[Anonymous No.16402741]

>>16400971
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism + Xi Jinping Thought

[Anonymous No.16402759]

>>16402694
This

[Anonymous No.16402803]

>>16400971
Following the Spenglerian understanding of history I believe each civilization goes through 3 phases; kingdom, democracy, and empire. This was seen very vividly in Rome, they started a kingdom, became a democracy, then an empire, and fell. Out of the ashes of Rome arose kingdoms which later became liberal democracies just as Rome did. I believe now with the liberal democratic institutions crumbling around us as they had decayed over time in Rome we are on the verge of empire, after which we will fall and the cycle will start anew.

[Anonymous No.16402819]

>>16402803
To work this better in with >>16401001 >>16401022 >>16401037 , the empire of the future will not look like the Roman Empire just as our democracies don't look like the Roman Republic and our Medieval Kingdoms weren't the same as the Roman Kingdom. Particulars change but the underlying cycle remains.

[Anonymous No.16402857]

>>16401006
>the lesser of the two evils
That's a very retarded approach. If you actually read about the Medieval aristocracies of Europe you'd welcome a true one with open arms. You're basing your assessment off of literal memes that were spun out of nothing but air by liberal revolutionaries in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.16402866]

>>16402803
Interesting comment, but for someone who types so lucidly, your misusage of semicolon is very bothersome. When you want to say something like, "Here are 3 things," you then follow it with a :, not ;.

Has the absolute misuse of the semicolon -- as prevalent on social-media, which isn't too shocking considering the level of discourse -- really reached a literature board now. I ask rhetorically, of course: it has.

[Anonymous No.16402911]

>>16402866
Typed too fast, my mistake.

[Anonymous No.16403309]

socialism with chinese characteristics

[Anonymous No.16403343]

China will win and eventually slough off it's capitalist tendencies it used to survive the liberal hegemony.
We will then enter a golden age of true communism and peace and understanding, Technocapital will be reigned in as it serves little purpose in the new era. Time may be abolished.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dreaming

[Anonymous No.16403364]

Perpetual revolution and constant terrorism. Our lives will be short but at least we'll be free

[Anonymous No.16403392]

Liberalism's original sin was to allow the intergenerational transfer of wealth, which created an artificial legal means to reproduce what previously had been licensed by biology. It should have just nipped the biologism in the bud.

[Anonymous No.16403404]

>>16402097
Ahahahaha

[Anonymous No.16403416]

>>16401001
cheating only works when most people are playing by the rules

[Anonymous No.16403458]

>>16400971
>What will be the successor of liberalism?
More liberalism. The authoritarian streak that got a boost from Trump's election. The end product of it has been that nothing has improved for anybody, the rich have gotten richer, and the most powerful country in the world is a plague-ridden, rioting mess that's on fire.
Like it or not liberalism's "live and let live" attitude and hands off approach is the only thing keeping us from the mushroom clouds.

[Anonymous No.16403476]

INDUSTRIAL-ERA IDEOLOGIES ARE A BUST
RETURN TO MONKE

[Anonymous No.16403549]

>>16403476
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.16403597]

Pure capitalism

[Anonymous No.16403724]

>>16400971
>What will be the successor of liberalism?
Free market capitalism.

>>16403597
Based.

[Anonymous No.16403735]

>>16401346
but that's just what we have right now: liberalism

[Anonymous No.16403800]

>>16401006
>revolution is destined to fail
you are an absolute brainlet.
>small amount of people holding all the wealth and power
this is always going to be true. it's literally the only way a cooperative society can function. you can't have 8 billion leaders and no followers, sorry chump. and without leaders you get nothing done but chaos.

>So, if we're doomed to a de facto aristocracy
no, we're not doomed to anything you absolute mongoloid, we've shown the populaces have the capacity to CHOOSE THEIR LEADERS. this is fucking revolutionary, but you're too retarded to understand the fundamental difference between the idea that
>arbitrary choice of leadership (aristocracy)
is observably and fundamentally worlds worse than
>leadership by merit

you're a (closet) communist who can't understand the triumph of merit and results in the modern era. just reading your insipid post makes it clear you would rather have a drooling, self destructive retard rule you rather than feel the slightest inferiority of knowing that the person who leads you might just MAYBE be better than you in some meaningful facet of life that you can't understand with your tepid iq. also, lumping all revolutions into the same bag is the height of smol-brained ignorance and really just shows how little you know of pre-modern history.

[Anonymous No.16403851]

>>16403458
>trump
twitter shitposter
>oh the humanity he's so extreme and awful!
milktoast political views
>anti-war
>maintaining borders
>isolationism
>stumping for the working class

where is the authoritarian streak?
is it the weekly magnifying glass we have on police shootings at the moment?
>oh man look, the guy was a felon who had a gun, dropped the gun, and tried to pick it up and was then shot!
>oh man look, the guy was a felon, RESISTED ARREST and had his restraint put on wrong and died due to complications
>oh man look, antifa is STILL RIOTING
where is the authoritarian streak? PLEASE TELL ME.
>oh man look, a politician not of drumf's party actually UP AND FUCKING SAID:
THIS PANDEMIC BULLSHIT WILL GO ON UNTIL AT LEAST THE ELECTION
fuck you you absolute shit-eater. trump advocating for us to all return to normal IS NOT AUTHORITARIAN. this fucking MASK BULLSHIT is ACTUALLY AUTHORITARIAN.

there is nothing at all wrong with liberalism--- EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT HAS BECOME LIBERAL.

liberalism won. it's now conservative to be liberal. the modern liberal-progressive mutation is literally self destructive
>women deserve same rights and respect
>all races deserve same rights and respect
has become
>gender is fake and gay
and my personal favorite
>systematic racism means we will never ever be able to be equal so we should all give up at trying and just segregate

what will replace liberalism?
conservatism, because liberalism won and has become a part of western culture, and now anyone who wants to respect women, or work at being fair and unbiased, is being attacked by the modern left.
>cycle theory is real

[Anonymous No.16403871]

Post-Trumpist Qabbalistic anti-intellectualism

[Anonymous No.16403941]

>>16400971
Economically something like anarchy. Technology will improve. Nobody will need jobs. We'll print houses out of hempcrete. Socially everyone will continue to oscillate between super fuckn weird and ironically square

[Anonymous No.16403986]

>>16400971
Chinese vassal states.

[Anonymous No.16403989]

>>16403597
>WAAHHH THE STATE OPPRESSES US
>Let's just ignore the fact that my boss acts like a dictator

[Anonymous No.16403999]

Neoliberal capitalism and democracy are incompatible with each other. The presence of one will eventually try to curb, undermine, or eliminate the other. People from Milton Friedman to Peter Thiel openly talked about the need to curb democracy (or reduce it to mere parliamentary show) to prevent any threat to neoliberal reforms emerging from the population being harmed by them. The neoliberal program can’t be “voted away” by the population as Milton Friedman put it. Eventually we’re going to have to choose between capitalism and democracy itself. It’s just that if we choose capitalism this time the species may simply go extinct. Avoiding the next few centuries of mass suffering and death is easy, it would require workers ownership, total democratization of society, and a more egalitarian society. But since the people who would benefit from this the most have been convinced that pursuing their interests and wellbeing would be “hell on earth,” we’re going to go through actual hell on earth for several centuries just to maintain ownership of the economy by a small handful of ultra-wealthy individuals.

Markets devour everything around them, you can’t aim to have both market values and some other value coexist with each other. Markets will eliminate any other goal or value you have until you have a solely market society warts and all. You see this problem especially in post-Thatcher Britain as she tried to build up markets, a strong nation-state, increase property ownership amongst the young, and reinstitute conservative values. Only one of these goals were successful for obvious reasons, one being you can help corporations all day long but they’ll still turn against your “conservative social values“ and adopt gestures towards social liberalism, racial justice, and women’s choice if they can make a profit off it (and give themselves a mask of moral legitimacy while undermining labor rights). Likewise it’s hard to keep the birthrate up and keep property ownership up if young people can’t get good paying jobs since corporations would rather bring in high skilled immigrants than pay for training for British graduates. Most of Britain’s entrepreneurial drive now comes from wealthy internationals living in England’s Southeast, bypassing most of the rest of the country.

[Anonymous No.16404016]

>>16401001
China is very capitalist, competence is even more fericious inside China than inside the US

[Anonymous No.16404041]

>>16401006
>What everybody needs to realize is that revolution is always destined to failure. 200+ years of revolution, and where have we wound up?
Tesis --> antítesis --> synthesis isn't failure, you want the 100% because of your autism and lazy typing but It isn't how the world works un reality

[Anonymous No.16404051]

>>16403999
Out of the helicopter you go

[Anonymous No.16404073]

>>16404051
Friedman would know all about hanging out with helicopter boy.

[Anonymous No.16404082]

>>16403989
Have sex
>>16403999
We are going for a ride kiddo

[Anonymous No.16404100]

>>16403989
This is the reasoning of child.
You are not forced to work for your boss, you signed a contract before

[Anonymous No.16404108]

>>16401001
Why the fuck do people keep repeating this bullshit of "hurr china is gonna take over, theyre the only country with a future". Holy shit, do people just take PRC propaganda at face value?
>Horribly aging population leading to collapse, fertility numbers lower than most western countries
>PRC operates on a mandate of economic prsoperity and endless economic growth, which is untenable as soon as most of the country is sufficiently developed
>No fucking culture whatsoever
>Backstabbing and corruption are rife
>Somehow managed to alienate most of the world during the coronavirus crisis

[Anonymous No.16404115]

>>16404108
>No fucking culture whatsoever
I think the West has too much of 'fucking culture'. I want off this sexual degeneracy ride, thanks.

[Anonymous No.16404125]

>>16404115
>he thinks China will be exempt from this
The void of culture will be filled with the most debased forms of western culture, which are protestant "spirituality" and extreme capitalist materialism.

[Anonymous No.16404144]

>>16403999
What is not compatible is 'mob's dictatorship' protecting individual rights against the mob while deciding about common things only is what democracy means nowdays

[Anonymous No.16404147]

>>16400971
the question is harder than it sounds. five years ago, the smartass answer was 'islam'. now, who the fuck knows? some variant of totalitarian social control via international capital, made possible by technology

[Anonymous No.16404167]

>>16404108
They are the only country with an alternative to the floundering Bretton Woods System, until Africa somehow gets its shit together.

[Anonymous No.16404197]

>>16404108
China is our future. And yes, it's gonna suck for the reasons you gave.

[Anonymous No.16404204]

>>16404197
Except it doesnt have a future. People say the west is doomed because of demographic decline, but China's demographic decline is far worse.
This feels like a repetition of people saying "oh Japan is gonna take over" back in the 80s, before it blew up and they stagnated.

[Anonymous No.16404233]

>>16404144
Very disingenuous to call it protecting individual rights when you’re referring to things like one individual having ownership over a country’s telecommunications infrastructure after the government built it using money from the tax-payers but then sold it off during privatization. Yeah “the mob” has the right to be enraged about someone who’s a massive financial drain on the rest on the country, charging them to use telecommunications infrastructure they already paid for to be built.

The ultimate goal of capitalism is for no “commons” to be left. So if democracy is to be squeezed into deciding what to do with only those things not yet the property of the wealthy, capitalism is driving democracy out of existence.

[Anonymous No.16404248]

>>16404204
You misunderstand. China is our future because they are now what we will be once we catch up. It's not so much the Chinese taking over but their authoritarian political model replicating itself in the west due to (as you said) demographic collapse, cultural voiding, rapid digitization and an increasingly technocratic elite. A bunch of western countries already enacted some pretty harsh social legislation under the pretext of the current pandemic, proving that they are ideologically willing to limit participation in the interest of a smoother political process.

[Anonymous No.16404521]

>>16400971
Technocratic neo-feudalism. All signs point to technological advances in computing going to benefit the already superrich. When you are superrich you stop caring about money and start caring about political power. When you have all the money in the world, the only restriction placed on you is political influence. Having dominated the wealth system, the power system becomes an enticing new challenging and the only area which they are relatively lacking.
Supposing internet deregulation policies continue, control of information will continue to centralize in the hands of big tech. Big tech will use this monopoly on the world's information for political subterfuge. Major tech firms will become semi-autonomous statelets, and will rule the world through sophisticated information and behavioral manipulation techniques.

[Anonymous No.16404884]

trannyhumanist techno-primitivism

[Anonymous No.16404893]

>>16400971
Pragmatic non-democracy, ideally.

[Anonymous No.16404895]

>>16401051
i support militant rortyist pragmatism

[Anonymous No.16404919]

>>16403999
>

Neoliberal capitalism and democracy are incompatible with each other. The presence of one will eventually try to curb, undermine, or eliminate the other. People from Milton Friedman to Peter Thiel openly talked about the need to curb democracy (or reduce it to mere parliamentary show) to prevent any threat to neoliberal reforms emerging from the population being harmed by them.
Neoliberal gulf monarchies: Population lives off gibmedats from oil and foreign workers (who are NEVER naturalized), low crime rates, you download wife-tracking apps to prevent her from misbehaving. All this with an average IQ of like 80.
Neoliberal democracy: Foreign workers live off gibmedats from population, perpetually increasing crime rates, your wife leaves you and then has your son's penis cut off to prove how brave, stunning, powerful etc. she is.

Democracy IS the problem. Almost every problem today is indirectly caused by some proclamation of equality, human rights, basic dignity, etc. having unintended consequences.

[Anonymous No.16405519]

>>16404919
This
Women should not vote

[Anonymous No.16405549]

>>16400971
anarchocapitalism

[Anonymous No.16405573]

>>16405549
>no pissbottle

[Anonymous No.16405659]

>>16403851
I agree with you on liberalism turning the nail on its head with recent attempts to organise socities towards segregation, for at least two decades.


I wish it will be as you say it will be. I feel deeply alienated by this society and its intentions for any family I would have.

Maybe, we can go back by having children whom we can instill the love of nature and tradition but whom on good conscience can have children knowing the modern classroom that awaits them?

I am black and today, to my own uncle I could only have sounded like a LARPING /pol/ack

[Anonymous No.16405831]

>>16403999
Good read and very informative, makes me want to read up on Marget thatcher era of Brittain. I've been meaning to for some time, it seems, for allot of writers and thinkers, it always come back full cirlce to that era.


>Avoiding the next few centuries of mass suffering and death is EASY, it would require workers ownership, total democratization of society, and a more egalitarian society.
some days ago, I was very disturbed by something, food became tasteless for the second time in my life, I felt compelled to inform those around me and my community of this. I had created leaflets and small promotional videos that I was gonna hand at church gatherings and at the local mosque.

After consulting with a good barrister whom adviced me.
You know what I learnt? Doing such a thing meant that I was knowingly defaming and libeling a multinational corporation and I was mostly certainly gonna find myself in a court of law against a legal citizen with near infinite resources.

It mattered not that I was quoting them word for word, with facts and statistics. I was told go home and forget this ever happened.

I went home and read about the Mclibel case in my country and I know it will not be me defending Capatalism amongts my family gathering.

This will be any thing but easy but untill then I refuse to give my money or data to Netflix Amazon and friends.

[Anonymous No.16406012]

>>16402803
Rome was never a democracy

[Anonymous No.16406350]

>>16403800
>popularity contest where retards choose their favorite retard
>leadership by merit
Choose one

[Anonymous No.16406364]

>>16406012
And, arguably, never have any modern Western countries been either. Democracy and Republicanism are interchangeable in this context.

[Anonymous No.16406366]

>>16406350
Based Celine never misses

[Anonymous No.16406429]

>>16402603
>>16402694

It failed because liberalism's redefinition of "liberty" implies the gradual rupture with traditions, customs, familial and community ties, place, religion (through globalism and free market economy) and eventually even biology and nature (gender ideology) that inevitably degenerates in unstable and chaotic societies and the need of a bigger and more powerful State to keep everything in order, thus diminishing the liberties it was supposed to defend in the first place.

For Deneen, conservatism and progressivism are just two sides of the same liberal coin.

[Anonymous No.16406443]

>>16406429
>>For Deneen, conservatism and progressivism are just two sides of the same liberal coin.
wow, groundbreaking and certainly not something which has been echoed by every single dissident figure of the 20th and 21st centuries

[Anonymous No.16406500]

The majority of the western elites seem to be dedicated to keeping the multicultural neolib train going. The biggest dissident movement among them is dark enlightenment stuff that is popular among Peter Thiel and his circle.

[Anonymous No.16406522]

>>16400971
There’s nothing after liberalism.
Society will flirt with a new wave of totalitarianism for a few years and then the governments will collapse. Corporations will also collapse, because the infrastructure they depend on will no longer be maintained. Billions will die and society will fracture into thousands of smaller political entities. The major themes of this century and the next will be first withdrawal and then rediscovery of man’s relation to the real world.

[Anonymous No.16406535]

>>16406443

Name names.

It is not simply that in the context of American politics, for example, democrats and republicans are the same thing because they only care for their own interests, are slaves of a "deep state" or whatever, but that they actually serve and follow (no matter the smoke and noise) the same core ideology, only confronted briefly by fascists and communists in the last century.

[Anonymous No.16406571]

>>16406443
The whole point is that liberalism is the central governing force but obfuscates itself as factions and neutralities. From Democrat vs. Republic to platitudes like “love is love” and “believe science,” it’s the same system in order and it’s slowly causing every issue in the world by its own incoherence and epistemological contradictions.

[Anonymous No.16406591]

>>16406535
>only confronted briefly by fascists and communists in the last century
You're very naive to think fascism and communism aren't just two alternative branches of liberalism

[Anonymous No.16406596]

>>16401006
MORE REVOLUTION WILL COME, AND IT WILL ALL BE NECESSARY.

[Anonymous No.16406648]

>>16404167
>until Africa somehow gets its shit together

[Anonymous No.16406696]

*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.16406887]

>>16406571

Exactly this.

[Anonymous No.16406906]

>>16400971
>What will be the successor of liberalism?
Extinction. Because you just read another crackpot economist who, like you, ignores the fact that resources are finite and all living systems are dissipative structures.

[Anonymous No.16407097]

>>16401006
I generally agree with this. Not sure why some are taking it as a controversial/wild view lol.

[Anonymous No.16407259]

>>16404108
>Holy shit, do people just take PRC propaganda at face value?
Yes

[Anonymous No.16407387]

>>16403800
imagine calling someone else a brainlet and unironically believing in direct democracy

you filth truly are not worth keeping alive

[Anonymous No.16407414]

>>16400971
The solution to the failures of liberalism is a system of political and legal minimalism. Liberalism failed only because of backsliding from the top, which was a necessary consequence of centralization. Politics only changes when economics or some other external factor influences what is perceived as socially acceptable and possible. Therefore in order to change politics, a radical shift up is necessary.

So if centralization got us here, de-centralization will lead us back to a better time.

[Anonymous No.16407496]

>>16403800
>the populaces have the capacity to CHOOSE THEIR LEADERS
*after being exposed to propaganda by wealthy, powerful interests their entire lives.

I think anyone here would agree that you can convince large groups of people of basically anything at all. This reveals a very serious flaw of democracy. Yes, people can be convinced to go into a booth and write down their opinion on a piece of paper. What hasn't been shown is that their opinion was developed without being influenced by manipulative people and systems with an interest in maintaining their own power.

[Anonymous No.16407590]

>>16407496
This is the single flaw to democracy.
The old give me 5 minutes with the average voter...

And ofcourse this issue represents itself at every level, including academia the supposed place for robust exchange of ideas

[Anonymous No.16407621]

Nothing.

[Anonymous No.16407632]

>>16406429
>that inevitably degenerates in unstable and chaotic societies and the need of a bigger and more powerful State to keep everything in order
Where has this happened? So far, only the opposite has happened, ergo previously authoritarian states liberalizing. Get rekt

[Anonymous No.16407801]

>>16400971
authoritarian liberalism

[Anonymous No.16407812]

>>16401061
>improved in successive generations

[Anonymous No.16407822]

>>16406591
dumbest thing i've seen posted on here all month

[Anonymous No.16407840]

>>16407621
Lol

[Anonymous No.16408090]

>>16407840
What's so funny? He was right.

What else is there to say about our current situation, where we're in the middle of a pandemic and a global economic crash, and the largest protest movement in the world is about a black man being shot in America? Even when liberalism fails, it revives itself and replaces concerns for structural issues of healthcare, wealth inequality and the betrayal of the social contract. More Americans care about George Floyd and black transgender women than they do the fact their government only gave them $1200 to deal with an economic depression. That's the End of History if I ever thought of it.

[Anonymous No.16408186]

>>16408090
fukuyama was right but his thesis has nothing to do with the shit you're talking about. the end of history was just a realistic observation that there's no challenger to liberal capitalism after the collapse of the soviet union

[Anonymous No.16408955]

>>16407632
>Where has this happened? So far, only the opposite has happened, ergo previously authoritarian states liberalizing. Get rekt

[Anonymous No.16409250]

>>16403851
>we will never ever be able to be equal so we should all give up at trying and just segregate
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16409371]

>>16405831
Yeah and then everybody on the bus got up and clapped, right?

[Anonymous No.16409576]

>>16403999
>Neoliberal capitalism and democracy
there is no difference between this two, this is what you fail to see

[Anonymous No.16409608]

>>16403999
Bleeding heart humanists have created untold suffering throughout recent history.

I'm convinced that when we transition to transhumanism, we will eventually get rid of some of our emotions when it comes to out-group dealings, because this faggotry needs to cease.

[Anonymous No.16409744]

>>16407632

I see it all around the Western world where free speech in the press, universities and digital media is being limited, inyected with newspeak and terrorized by "cancel culture". Not to mention mass surveillance.

[Anonymous No.16410076]

>>16407822
Idiot