St George:
Liberalising forces always win out in the end.
Umm actually no they don't(The Bolshevik Revolution, Chinese Revolution, French Revolution leads to Robespierre and eventually Empire, Nazi victory in 1933, Yeltsin establishing a dictatorship in Russia that Putin inherited, the various post-colonial 3rd World Dictatorships, Egyptian Revolution and Coup-though compared to Muslim Brotherhood that is liberal, the rise of the Far Right in places like Kansas), ..the general trajectory over the last century has been various shades of Totalitarianism, secessionism and ethnic supremacy(often called nationalism, or identity politics)..this
article refutes Fukuyama's fundamentally marxist march of history idea.
This one also refutes it.
This article also shows why liberalism will not "triumph". Liberalism, of the classical variety, died in the late 1800's with Industrialization. The other 'liberalism' that became popular after 1960's has a heritage in Trotskyism. Even the Democratic process is a ruse as
this book frequently compares US elections to the Soviet Union's elections(UK elections being slightly more legit in process). You may want to read Luttwak's "Fascism is the wave of the future" published in 1994.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/03/11/edward-luttwak-warns-of-fascism-94934/ The one gripe with Luttwak I would have is he doesn't go into the technocratic aspect of Fascism/Corporatism(defined as a
"system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".A video definition of
Fascism.
You may want to read
Morris Berman's and
John Ralston Saul's commentaries on the United States. Granted they have their biases, these are academics who are supposed to know their field(Morris Berman seems to have a chip on his shoulder-mainly because of a bad experience he had with post 9/11 paranoia). Saul's main problem is he's too hopeful for reform. One thing that makes it interesting is as academics, they are agents of the State, so if they were truly loyal to the government that employs them, they would be parroting official proclamations about how great America is and it's 'inevitable' political immortality.
Digital Revolution creating Techno-Fascist future
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/it...n-sowing-the-seeds-of-a-techno-fascist-future
This
video shows partially why fascism is likely to become more common: as Automation increases, the productive value of a nation is no longer dependent on the citizens of that nation, which means they can be skipped in the process and it will no longer be required for officials to even appeal to them(the only reason they will be considered at all is as consumers of corporate products). This
video defines that as necessary prerequisite for Dictatorship.
As for France, that change in their constitution was during the collapse of their Colonial Empire, so it actually doesn't bode well for the American Empire either. Regarding a liberal coalition, I have very little faith in that happening-leftists fight each other more than they combat other groups(part of the reason Trump won was the fielding of an unelectable candidate who had earned a lot of enemies over the years and even more so with the Sanders mess.) and Libertarians tend to despise the left more than the right. Right wing factions don't split apart as much as the leftist ones in the United States(the Tea Party was the closest thing to a right wing split and it basically devoured the old GOP rather than permanently splitting the right wing-the Libertarians are the only ones that could've split the GOP). The only leftists the have been elected in recent memory for the US were rather conservative in their viewpoints, or were in regions that virtually have no right wingers in them.
Every four years someone makes this prediction. It gets old. Oh this guy predicted two things right. How many did he get wrong? What's the ratio?
I'm not sure what his ratio is, though based on the two he's made so far. about 2 out of 3 so that's better than nothing(plus he has been more methodical over the years). His prediction on the United States was also made over 30 years ago, he revised it when Bush was elected to 2020(he initially said 2025). Granted he has his bias(Conflict Theory: the apparent basis of his work, originates from Marx and Hegel). That aside, his assessment that the foreign wars are being used by Europe to bleed the US economically has some merit to it, the documentary World without the US showed interviews with Europeans that more or less confirmed their "Let the US do it" attitude(mind you it was a pro-interventionist program). The United States is also about 240 years old and Western European Empires have an average lifespan of 200 to 300 years(and the imperial lifespans have been shorter in the last century). It's maximum Territorial extent was back in the 1940's, educational advantage
has declined to about Rwanda's level in some categories, it's per capita income has never been as good as it was before 1973,
Life expectancy has fallen, it's never been able to top the moon landing as a cultural achievement and today the
knowledge of even how to build a moon rocket has been lost(yet somehow Obama insists that there will be a Mars landing) and hasn't had a major innovation since the Internet in the 1960's(except maybe some new Financial instruments, and even the Stock Market has never been as good as it was in 1997 and will likely never be that good again). Granted the Finance industry can make money by performing industrial sabotage as
Nitzan and Bichler show. It seems the best days of the United States were several decades ago.
