Christopher Hitchens on Francis Fukuyama part 1 of 6

Christopher Hitchens dissects and criticizes Francis Fukuyama's thesis: "The End of History and the Last Man"

Part 1 / 6

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Christopher Hitchens
• Francis Fukuyama
• The End of History
• Capitalism
• Democracy
• Globalization
• Third World
• Economics
• socialism
• New world Order
• America
• Imperialism
• Poverty
• Hegel
• Marx

[ssahmad]

where was he speaking?

[hexag1]

I don't know. It's old, from like 1992

[Brantinger]

Even if he rejects the description "neoconservative", its exactly what he is: One day u wake up and think "hell, im a left-winger, but im only surrounded by crackpots here. What happened?" That is what I call the "Neocon Moment". I think he only rejects it because of his understanding of the notion "conservative", which maybe a lil bit inflexible. Its hard for him to get rid of his old ideologcal baggage if it isnt connected directly with concrete political issues.

[hexag1]

How is Hitchens a neoconservative? And how are the neocons 'conservative'. They aren't, except possibly with domist/social policies. But their geopolitics is quite radical.

[jez321]

didnt know christopher walken was working as an mc

[asdfgasdfasdful]

"America" is an aggregation of 300 million different human beings, millions among them "brown people" and others who care about "poor brown people" (US has vastly the highest private donation to Africa, eg) and yes Bush et al clearly cared about the average Iraqi... though I disagree with most of their strategic decisions I have no reason to doubt their humanity... and neither do you.

Neoconservatism does not equal "Bush" he had some neocon influences, but had many more realists in his cabinet.

[sacredsoma]

does anyone have an mp3 version of this

[ladros]

@hexag1 (2/2) of classical liberal democracy and universal recognition. Of this camp, one would have to include Fukuyama and, though he was only a critical friend of Leo Strauss, Alexander Kojev. The split between these camps and their ideologies has been obscured due to some tendencies on the left to demonize the Straussians, which accidentally makes them seem like a much more cohesive family than they really are. Like other political philosophies, it evolved to fit the day to day problems.

[ladros]

@hexag1 (1/2) My professor of late-modern philosophy described it like this: there were two waves of neo-conservatism. The first was pessimistic and included people like William Kristol, Allan Bloom and Norman Podhoretz who felt that America was doomed because it had abandoned its older theological principles unto its own destruction (and to whom Hitchens was always a critic in print). The second wave was wildly optimistic, and felt that America would be the source of a global revolution...

[stew3128561]

@lightandbeautiful TROLLL

[BelfastAtheist]

@patient0Studios

''He calls himself a post-Trotskyist''

Wrong on two counts. He never added ''Post'' to the title, nor does he believe that Socialism has anything to contribute to the Global Economy in its modern form.

''And a Marxist''

Also wrong.

I've seen him call himself a Liberal more times in the last 10 years (once) than I've seen him call himself a Marxist. Which of his works are you getting this from? His early 90s stuff? His late 80s stuff..?

[patient0Studios]

@BelfastAtheist He calls himself a post-Trotskyist and a Marxist. He has dropped the "socialist" label. It is you who hasn't paid enough attention to the Hitch's own words and writings

[lightandbeautiful]

Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.

A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.

Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.

[Krazyeyeskilla]

@BelfastAtheist

I believe that he does see himself as a Marxist, just not a socialist. In other words, he does not believe in the working class's inevitable triumph or historical mission nor does he believe in the Party. But, he still does see think (according to him) like a historical materialist. I seen an interview with him (recent as he is bald from his chemo) where he says this.

Personally, i think he sucks balls

[BelfastAtheist]

@azzy314159

I guess that was why he was named the worlds Fifth top public intellectual..

Pretty impressive for a psuedo intellectual I would have thought!

[azzy314159]

Certainly no intellectual giant.  More like a pseudo intellectual.