というエントリをブランコ・ミラノビッチが書き(原題は「The hidden dangers of Fukuyama-like triumphalism」)、その末尾で以下のように述べている。

When you have in your mind this (I think) much more accurate narrative of the past half-century, the current crisis can only be seen as one of the many crises of capitalism. Like a swimmer that at times goes down under water when the winds are high and then reemerges when the winds die down, liberal capitalism is now going through one of its periodic episodes of withdrawal and weakness. There is no guarantee that it will emerge victorious from this one—it did not in 1917, nor in 1922, nor in 1933—but it allows us to think of the problem much more clearly than if we view the world through the misleading lenses of a continuous and conflictless march toward the chiliastic reign of democracy and “liberalism”.
This is where unfortunately the vulgarizers of Fukuyama terribly misled the young Western generation. Having had no direct experience of attractiveness and importance of nationalism, Fascism, populism, or Communism (the Orwell of “Homage to Catalonia” is never mentioned but the Orwell of the “Animal Farm” is known by all) they imagined that no rational human being could ever entertain such views. The imagined that such beliefs had to be imposed from without—by the use of extravagant force. So, they believed (in part because it also economically suited them as many of them came of age in the last decade of the 20th century), that the foreordained teleological march toward the system about which their parents and grandparents entertained serious doubts, could no longer be forestalled. When the march deviated from the planned course, they panicked. But they should not. They should look back at history: historia magistra vitae est.


I am playing with the idea that Frank Fukuyama got it wrong when he wrote:

Francis Fukuyama (1989): The End of History?
https://ps321.community.uaf.edu/files/2012/10/Fukuyama-End-of-history-article.pdf :
"Fascism was destroyed as a living ideology by World War II...
...a defeat... on a very material level... [and] of the idea as well.... Expansionist ultranationalism, with its promise of unending conflict leading to disastrous military defeat, had completely lost its appeal. The ruins of the Reich chancellory as well as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed this ideology on the level of consciousness as well as materially, and all of the proto-fascist movements spawned by the German and Japanese examples like the Peronist movement in Argentina or Subhas Chandra Bose's Indian National Army withered after the war...

Thinking clearly about this is, I think, greatly hindered by references to "populism" rather than by calling it what it is: "neo-fascism", if you insist on not using the full F-word. (The real populists of the late nineteenth century were something very different.) But what is really going on is that Frank was wrong when he said that this ideology had been "killed... on the level of consciousness", wasn't he?

https://ps321.community.uaf.edu/files/2012/10/Fukuyama-End-of-history-article.pdf :



  • 西側が暴力と脅しを用いたと書いたこと
    • デロングは、ミラノビッチがユーゴ出身であることを意識してか(もしそうならば揶揄として行き過ぎのような気が個人的にはするが*1)、「ヨシップ・ブロズ・チトーを最も成功した指導者として挙げざるを得ない社会システムはいかなるものであれ、多くの点で非常に深刻な問題を抱えている(Any societal system that must point to Josip Broz Tito as its most successful leader is truly in very deep trouble at so many levels.)」と書いている。
  • 1945年や1965年や1975年当時における民主主義的な資本主義がソビエトシステムに勝利する確率について、シュンペーターサミュエルソンティンバーゲンガルブレイスを援用しつつ書いたこと



George Kennan, the original author of the containment policy, had observed there were “only five centres of industrial and military power in the world which are important to us from the standpoint of national security”, and he meant: the United States, Great Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan. That could be modified to Western Europe and (some portion of) East Asia.
If the Cold War in the Third World did matter in some way, it was by inducing the Soviet Union to allocate more of its resources to silly adventurism. It was expensive for the United States, but military tit-for-tat was relatively even more expensive for the Soviet Union....
What is the true “Fukuyama vulgarism” ? It’s not the triumphalism of liberal capitalism, which seems bloody obvious. It’s the utopian expectation that the Rest of the World would and could adopt the model.
Edit (an addendum): My point is that most of the violent illiberal means by which the Cold War was waged constituted pure waste. They were ineffective and unnecessary. They did not matter in the end. Decision-makers at the time may have rationally thought differently, but in retrospect it appears to be true. How can anyone disagree? Was the American war in Vietnam or the Soviet war in Afghanistan not a big waste of human life and national fortune?
真の「劣化版フクヤマ」とは何か? それは自由資本主義の勝利主義ではない。そのことはあまりにも自明だった。それは、世界の他の部分も手本に従うことを望んでおり、かつそれが可能である、というユートピア的な期待だった。

*1:この文章を指しているかは分からないが、ミラノビッチも後述の反論エントリで、デロングとPseudoerasmusの反応には時に行き過ぎがあった(both Brad DeLong and Pseudoerasmus strongly (and at times intemperately) reacted)、と不快感を表明している(ちなみに小生がみたところPseudoerasmusはそれほど個人攻撃に走っていないので、その不快感はおそらくデロングが主な対象)。