10 Comments

It’s good to be reminded of where the global world has come from to serve as a beacon to where we should be and are going. But that beacon can only be as strong as it should be if civilization strives for and believes in the truth, not the convoluted half truths, half fantasies many are pushing around the world ( i.e. Putin, Orban, Trump, etc.). I look forward to reading the remaking essays.

Expand full comment

I agree that people often misread Fukuyama, but I found your analysis to be somewhat one-dimensional. Hopefully, the rest of the series will shed more light on the complexity of global history.

My main issue with Fukuyama's and also Huntington's arguments, ("The Clash of Civilizations") is their one-dimensional and linear nature. Globalisation, especially when examined within the broader context of global history, or what is often referred to as "the long duree," reveals its multidimensional nature with various trajectories. Recent global events, such as 9/11, Brexit, and the migration crisis, underscore that globalisation is not a linear process but a complex interplay of different forces and voices. Therefore, it is crucial to move beyond narrow lenses (such as progress and GPD) and recognise the need for a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of globalisation. This perspective respects the dignity of difference, promotes dialogue, and challenges policies that impose perpetuate unequal power dynamics.

Globalisation is not a constant like gravity or the speed of light (can't remember who said this) --

instead, it has undergone radical changes in the past and is likely to do so in the future.

Expand full comment

Luckily we enjoyed the peace dividend for decades in life. Keep from the dictators.

Expand full comment

It's called a Ponzi Scheme, a/k/a Bubble, you nitwit. Borrowing against future generations and poisoning every living system is not "doing something right". Who sponsors you?

Expand full comment

This is the first episode in a series; it is the introduction, setting the scene by providing a very potted history of development. I can see that your views are the extreme opposition to neo-liberalism which I totally understand. However, my feeling is that this is the time to wait and see what subsequent episodes have to say about development; then will come the time for challenge and discussion - without the need for insults against someone who is doing us all a favour by publishing his views for us to pick apart.

Expand full comment

Ah, the intellectual weighs in…

Expand full comment

I'd like to pick up on something that hasn't been commented on by others.

Tha statement

"Postwar political development in East Asia was no less of a miracle — Japan built a consolidated modern state in just over a decade (a process which took hundreds of years in Europe)".

The reason Europeans took so long, in my opinion, is there was no 'blueprint' it took decades to evolve into a 'modern state'.

Japan only took a 'decade' to modernise because of states that were already modern 'guiding' them through the pitfalls of the process.

Expand full comment

PAX Americana has been a resounding success.

Yes, there were errors and a few million killed unnecessarily but billions rose up and enjoyed prosperity.

We fail to understand what USA accomplished, I was in the Soviet Union as it collapsed. It was unimaginable how backward it was economically.

I served in Peace Corps in Sabah, Malaysia from 1967 to 69 and have a house there. I visit every couple of years and in 1967 no woman drove a car and now virtually they all do with the AC on.

The “natives” fly all around the world .

Tropical diseases are cured. In 1967 there was no TV, only short wave radio and today most don’t watch any of the 100s of channels on TV as they are all glued to the internet or playing video games.

Expand full comment

1)What has been a "profound success" (up till recently anyway) is the two centuries of liberal individualism in places with populations of largely European ethnicity.

2) attempts to 'export' it to places like Africa and most of the Middle East has been a dismal, delusional failure.

3) S E Asian socio-economic dynamism has also been a "profound success" in its own way (although it lacks a neat politico/economic label)

These things are true....but "the liberal international order" is a meaningless notion. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/

Expand full comment

Very naive..

Expand full comment