Skip to main content

Francis Fukuyama is right: Socialism is the only alternative to liberalism

In Liberalism and Its Discontents, Francis Fukuyama diagnoses the political and psychological malaise caused by capitalism. His analysis makes one thing clear: liberalism is incapable of addressing the social, economic, and ecological crises it faces.
  
by Samuel McIlhagga 

Part 5 - But What Is Classical Liberalism?
 
Fukuyama admits that what he calls classical liberalism has historically specific connotations, yet still decides to use it to attempt to describe an ideal liberalism untainted by recent transformations. This is an odd position for a Hegelian to take. The German philosopher famously insisted that the specific form that society took should not be understood as an aberration or deviation from an ideal; ideals that could not be actualized were instead untimely. As Hegel states in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820), “What is rational is actual; and what is actual is rational.

Absent in the theories of contemporary defenders of liberalism is Hegel’s cold but clear-eyed realism. Defenders of classical liberalism often attempt to anachronistically draw a lineage between their ideas and the supposedly timeless views of a handful of European thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These theorists did not understand themselves as liberals, being far more concerned with classical political forms and the constitutional squabbles of their day. When we refer to classical liberalism in the present day, we rarely actually mention those who would have recognized the term — mostly individuals who offered a specific set of short-lived free-trade policies connected to a critique of aristocratic landed interests and mercantilism in early nineteenth-century Europe.

Throughout much of the book, Fukuyama jumps between two notions, liberal democracy and liberalism. The former denotes a specific configuration that took shape across much of the Western world after the end of World War II and the latter describes a transhistorical ideal stretching back to the English Civil War and the American Revolution. These two concepts serve to paper over each other’s limitations. Liberalism as an ideal can be marshaled as a critique of the deficits of actually existing liberalism, and actually existing liberalism can be drawn on to reject socialism and other political projects that have not succeeded in becoming hegemonic.

In reality, liberalism, much like conservatism, is simply a set of political moves and cultural associations determined by historical, sociological, and political positioning among factions in particular systems. Witness the relativity generated by comparing the huge differences between Australian, European, and Japanese liberals and their American counterparts. Fukuyama could have headed these criticisms off by clearly defining a narrow set of values for his definition of classical liberalism. Alternatively, he might have coined a new term to describe the actual and more capacious set of values he cares about. What Fukuyama advocates instead is not classical liberalism but a form of humanistic social democracy.

Indeed, what is odd about Liberalism and Its Discontents is that, when Fukuyama sets out to describe the values he cares about without using the term classical liberalism, he often sounds like a socialist or Marxist of the secular, humanist, universalistic, and democratic mold.

In a recent interview with Novara Media’s Aaron Bastani, Fukuyama surprisingly agreed with a large amount of the current populist social democratic program recently proposed by Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. For instance, in Liberalism and Its Discontents, he argues that economic class, rather than social identities, should be the basis for the subjectivity of political actors: “Social policies should seek to equalize outcomes across the whole society, but they should be directed at fluid categories like class rather than fixed ones like race or ethnicity.

He goes on to argue that collective conceptions of the common good have been replaced by an overemphasis on personal autonomy, self-actualization, and choice: “Over time in liberal societies, there has been a growing reluctance to posit substantive human ends that have priority over other ends; rather, it is the act of choice itself that has the highest priority.

Ironically, the “liberal” values Fukuyama cares most about — freedom of speech, institutions of accountability, human rights, mechanisms of personal autonomy, and a conception of the common good beyond identity politics — are eroded by the capitalist dynamics built into the liberal framework. Within a democratic system, liberal freedoms actually exist in spite of capitalism, not because of it. Outside of America, which has a historically underdeveloped left, liberal traditions were won by social democrats and socialists, for whom rights to organize and speak were essential.

Indeed, the dividing lines between Fukuyama’s “populism” and “progressivism” do not map consistently onto other political systems. The discontents generated by liberal democracy have varied from nation to nation. For instance, a particular republican left liberalism in France has rejected what they have understood as American notions about personal autonomy with regard to lifestyle choices and values, and instead insists on a common-good civic nationalism emphasizing universal French values such as strict laïcité, which has, in practice, served to marginalize Muslims and other minorities.

In Peru, the socialist Pedro Castillo, influenced by Catholic liberation theology, won his election by attacking both economic inequality, neoliberalism, and, to an extent, social liberalism. Consequently, the dynamic map of discontent Fukuyama proposes is specifically an American one — the constellation of attitudes and policy positions that make up American populism and progressivism are not universally fungible.

Fukuyama’s admirable desire for universalistic and humanistic politics frustratingly leads him back to an exhausted nineteenth-century ideology. Instead, we should look at the actual state of modernity in its specificity. China has demonstrated that capitalism can succeed without an accompanying democratic appendage. Its mirror image, an effectively democratic noncapitalist state, has yet to explicitly emerge. In a world defined by political crises and climate breakdown, perhaps the best way to defend the values Fukuyama cares about would be through an imaginative political order. This political order would recognize how capitalism causes destabilizing social consequences such as inequality, and drives the economic causes of nationalism and war — all of which are bad for democracy.

The aim of this political project would be to replace the unconstrained authority of the market with democratic accountability, held together by the lynchpin of organized labor. This has always been the project of myriad socialist traditions — and especially the democratic one. Their institutions were wounded at the end of the last century. This defeat was, however, not total. In almost every country across the developed world, there exist left-wing and socialist forces, some of which have grown their bases. They can fulfil the liberal democratic promise that capitalism is incapable of realizing, but they can only do this if they replace democratic capitalism with democratic socialism. What Fukuyama has made blindingly clear is that, left to its own devices, liberalism will do nothing to alleviate the crises it has caused.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why are Israeli war criminals hiding out in Patagonia?

The Grayzone   The Grayzone 's Oscar Leon examines reports of Israeli veterans of Gaza hiding out in the Patagonia region of Argentina, a country governed by a hardcore supporter of Israel who has forged close ties to messianic networks and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. To place the issue in a wider context, Leon spoke to veteran Argentine journalist Sebastian Salgado, and Santiago Cuneo, a former boss of Milei and now one of his fiercest opponents. 

BRICS expands to majority of world population: Vietnam joins, USA fails to divide China & Vietnam

Geopolitical Economy Report   BRICS has expanded to 20 countries - 10 members and 10 partners - after adding Vietnam. BRICS+ now makes up 43.93% of world GDP (PPP) and 55.61% of the global population. Ben Norton explains how the US failed to divide China and Vietnam in the Second Cold War. 

Funcionario de Trump: el director de la CIA “toma dictado” del Mossad sobre Irán

Un funcionario de la administración Trump le cuenta a The Grayzone que el Mossad israelí está usando al director de la CIA, John Ratcliffe y al jefe del CENTCOM, general Michael Kurilla, para influenciar a Trump con inteligencia manipulada sobre el programa nuclear iraní. Dentro de la Casa Blanca, los disidentes han sido aislados, preparando el terrenno para una guerra de cambio de régimen que pudiera costar vidas estadounidenses.   Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil  Parte 4 - La jefa de gabinete aísla a Trump con “el general favorito de Israel”   El funcionario de la administración le contó a The Grayzone que la jefa de gabinete de la Casa Blanca, Suzie Wiles, se aseguró de que el presidente permaneciera rodeado por Ratcliffe y el general Michael Kurilla en los briefings relacionados con Irán. Se dice que Ratcliffe toma dictado del Mossad y lee los documentos que ellos prepararon al presidente sin ningún sentido de desapego crítico, o revelar que las valoraciones provinie...

Trump Welcomed a War Criminal to the White House

Senator Bernie Sanders   Benjamin Netanyahu has been indicted as a war criminal. His government is systematically killing and starving the people of Gaza. He will be remembered as one of the monsters of modern history. And Trump welcomed him to the White House.  

As Trump threatens BRICS, it grows stronger, resisting US dollar and Western imperialism

Geopolitical Economy Report   US President Donald Trump has threatened heavy tariffs on BRICS, claiming the organization is "dead", but it is actually growing in size and influence. 10 members and 10 partners participated in the 2025 BRICS summit in Brazil, where they discussed plans for dedollarization, trade and investment in national currencies, and how to create a more multipolar global order. Ben Norton explains.     Related:   Trump's tariffs: A unique opportunity for BRICS and the Global South to fully escape from dollar tyranny

SHOCKING Outburst in EU Parliament: ‘Isráel Must Be Held Accountable!

The Africa News Network  

Israel is responsible for one of the cruelest genocides in modern history

UN Palestinian Rights Committee   In her address to the Human Rights Council on 3 July 2025, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, warned of a genocide unfolding in Gaza and the West Bank.    She described the situation as “apocalyptic,” stating that “Israel is responsible for one of the cruelest genocides in modern history.”    With over 200,000 Palestinians reported killed or injured and the real toll “far higher,” she accused Israel of dismantling humanitarian aid in Gaza, replacing it with a “so-called 'Gaza Humanitarian Foundation' [that] is nothing else than a death trap.”    She emphasized that this was not an isolated crisis but part of a decades-long “settler colonial project of erasure” that has intensified in recent months through military force, starvation, and mass displacement. Albanese condemned the deep complicity of corporate and state actors i...

Israel Is Building A CONCENTRATION CAMP In Gaza

Owen Jones                    There are no pretenses here. No pretenses at all. This is a genocide being committed in front of the whole world.  

Trump’s Tariff Threat on BRICS BACKFIRES— Is He Fueling the Rebellion?

GVS Deep Dive   Donald Trump just slapped a 10% tariff threat on BRICS countries — calling them “anti-American” and accusing them of trying to destroy the U.S. dollar. But instead of weakening the bloc, his aggressive posture might be doing the opposite.   GVS Deep Dive unpacks Trump’s July 2025 tariff ultimatum, the explosive Truth Social posts, and the BRICS summit response from leaders like Lula and Modi. From new financial systems like BRICS Pay to de-dollarization and sovereign trade in local currencies, the Global South is pushing back. And here’s the twist: as Trump tries to defend the dollar with threats, he may actually be accelerating the very rebellion he fears. 🎯 Why is the U.S. struggling to sign new trade deals? 🇮🇳 Will India bend under Trump’s pressure — or break away? 🌍 Is BRICS the future of global power? 📉 And what happens if the dollar really does decline?     Related:  Trump's tariffs: A unique opportunity for BRICS and the Global So...

US gov't is very afraid of BRICS and dedollarization, Trump insiders reveal

Geopolitical Economy Report   Close Donald Trump allies like Steve Bannon say "the president is pissed every time he looks at the BRICS de-dollarization effort". The US government fears the Global South's challenge to the exorbitant privilege of the dollar. Trump is trying to make an example out of Brazil, threatening high tariffs to punish Lula da Silva, who promotes a multipolar world and a new global reserve currency. Ben Norton explains.     Related:   Trump's tariffs: A unique opportunity for BRICS and the Global South to fully escape from dollar tyranny