SPIEGEL Interview with Francis Fukuyama 'Where Is the Uprising from the Left?'

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama was once the darling of American neo-conservatives. In a SPIEGEL interview, the author of "The End of History" explains why he now believes that the excesses of capitalism are a threat to democracy and asks why there is no "Tea Party on the left."

Obama arriving at Andrews Airforce Base last week after a five-state trip. Obama and his advisers "are obviously part of the 1 percent," argues Fukuyama.

Obama arriving at Andrews Airforce Base last week after a five-state trip. Obama and his advisers "are obviously part of the 1 percent," argues Fukuyama.

SPIEGEL: Professor Fukuyama, you are best known for your essay "The End of History," in which you declared that, after the demise of the Soviet Union, liberal democracy had emerged as the triumphant global model. Now, your latest research claims that the flaws of capitalism and globalization could endanger this democratic model. How do you explain this shift?

Fukuyama: Capitalism is the wrong word to use here, because there is not a viable alternative to capitalism. What we are really talking about is just economic growth and the development of modern economic societies. A combination of factors is beginning to challenge their progress in the United States. We have had a lot of technological change that substituted for low-skill labor and made many people in Western democracies lose their jobs.

SPIEGEL: Which is why countries such as the United States or Britain wanted to turn themselves into "service-oriented" economies.

Fukuyama: We have unthinkingly embraced a certain version of globalization that assumed we had to move very quickly into this post-industrial, post-manufacturing world. Doing so, we forgot that the whole reason real socialism never took off in the US was the fact that the modern economy seemed to produce middle-class societies in which the bulk of the population could enjoy a middle-class status. They worked in industries that were abolished in our countries and transferred to countries like China.

SPIEGEL: Even if members of the middle class held on to their jobs, they saw their income stagnate or even decline, while a few of globalization's winners at the top reaped outsize rewards. The level of income inequality in advanced nations is greater than ever before. What effect does that have on our societies?

Fukuyama: It is not good for democracy. If income is relatively evenly distributed and there are not very sharp differences between rich and poor, you have a greater sense of community. You have a greater sense of trust. You do not have parts of the community that have superior access to the political system that they can use to advance their own interests ...

SPIEGEL: … all of which undermines the democratic process.

Fukuyama: What you are going to see in a democracy with a weaker middle class is much more populism, more internal conflict, an inability to resolve distributional issues in an orderly way. In the United States right now, you do have this return of populism. It should be on the left, but actually most of it is on the right. If you talk to Tea Party members about their feelings regarding the government, they are very passionate. They hate the government. They think they have been betrayed by elites.

SPIEGEL: Americans, however, are beginning to discuss the problem of social inequality much more openly.

Fukuyama: They are slowly beginning to realize it. The recent public focus on inequality and the Occupy Wall Street movement are harbingers of change in that direction. The trouble is that in the United States it is extremely difficult to mobilize people around pure class issues. President Barack Obama was ostracized as a "European socialist" when he brought up the idea of higher taxes on the rich. These class debates are historically unpopular -- except for a very brief period in the 1930s during the Great Depression.

SPIEGEL: The latest financial crisis was often compared to the Great Depression: Why did we not see another case of the left wing rising up against the rich?

Fukuyama: I am at a loss, too. Where is this uprising from the left? This is a crisis that began on Wall Street. It really was rooted in the particular American model of liberalized finance. It hurt ordinary people tremendously, and it benefited the richest part of the country -- the finance sector -- which came through the crisis very well, thanks to government bailouts. You would have thought that this would pave the way for a rise of left-wing populism as seen in the 1930s. A Tea Party on the left, so to speak.

SPIEGEL: Could the Occupy Wall Street movement fill this void on the left?

Fukuyama: I really do not take this movement seriously, because its social base is extremely narrow. It consists mostly of the same kids that were protesting in 1999 in Seattle against the World Trade Organization -- anti-capitalists. The big problem sociologically for the left in the United States is that the white working class and lower middle class, that in Europe would be reliably social democratic in their political behavior, tends to vote Republican or is easily brought into the Republican camp. Until the Occupy Wall Street people can connect up with that demographic group, there is not going to be a big left-wing populist base of support in the US.

SPIEGEL: Has the crisis simply not been deep enough to achieve that?

Fukuyama: Ironically, because the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury acted to support the financial sector, the crisis did not develop into a deep depression with unemployment up to 20 percent like in the 1930s. Back then, President Franklin D. Roosevelt could restructure the big banks. I believe that the only solution to our current problems is to restructure all these big banks, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and Bank of America, and turn them into smaller entities that could then be allowed to go bankrupt. They would no longer be "too big to fail." But this has not happened so far.

SPIEGEL: One could also make the case that President Obama was simply not as tough as Roosevelt.

Fukuyama: Obama had a big opportunity right at the middle of the crisis. That was around the time Newsweek carried the title: "We Are All Socialists Now." Obama's team could have nationalized the banks and then sold them off piecemeal. But their whole view of what is possible and desirable is still very much shaped by the needs of these big banks.

SPIEGEL: In other words, Obama and his influential advisors, like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, are themselves part of the "1 percent" that the Occupy Wall Street movement rails against.

Fukuyama: They are obviously part of the 1 percent. They socialize with these Wall Street gurus. Goldman Sachs boss Lloyd Blankfein met with Geithner many times during the crisis. Such close contact clearly influences the world view of the White House.

SPIEGEL: But would you seriously argue that Republicans are any less close to Wall Street?

Fukuyama: Oh no. Republican politicians are completely bought by Wall Street. But the real question is: Why do their working class supporters continue to vote for them? My explanation is partly this deep distrust of any form of government that goes back very far in American politics, and is today reflected in political figures like Sarah Palin, which holds against Obama primarily the fact that he went to Harvard. There is a kind of populist resentment in US politics against being ruled by elites.

SPIEGEL: Even the Tea Party movement is largely financed by billionaires who represent everything regular Tea Party members are opposed to.


Discuss this issue with other readers!
4 total posts
Show all comments
Page 1
golddilettante 02/01/2012
1. 30 years of neo-liberal hubris for this????
Fuck-uyama !!! What a hypocrite !!!! So today mister Fuck-uyama tries to make amends??? Isn't mr. Fuck-uyama aware of the fact that his publication called "the end of history" has contributed in great part to the non-existence or demise of the very "left wing tea party" he so yearns for today? How can der Spiegel lower itself to even offer a tribune to such an asshole???
WarEagle01 02/01/2012
2. Fukuyama doesn't have a clue
As demonstrated by this assinine statement: "But it is true that they mobilize against their own economic interests and for the interests of elites they should despise." Tea Partiers are mobilized for less government interference in the economy and lower taxes for everyone. These are things that they feel will stimulate the economy and benefit everyone. How is that not in their own economic interests? There seems to be this idea out there among the American liberal intelligentzia that working and middle class Americans who identify as conservatives are stupid because they don't want the wealth of rich people to be confiscated for redistribution. So, they're not "voting in their own economic interests." Here's a clue, Francis: Ever heard of pride? Have you ever considered that many Americans simply don't want a hand-out from the government? Seriously, if this is the kind of condescending attitude elitist American liberals have toward regular people, then no wonder they are losing so badly. Have fun in November, Francis.
geroniman 02/02/2012
3. How to Mend the Marriage between Industry and Democracy
1) Political power arises out of economic power 2) Democracy is majority rule The majority of a country, a developed country, is in that social spectrum which is referred to as the middle class. The latter may be a circular definition subject to scrutiny in that both the term 'poor' and the term 'rich' are extremes relative only to the perception of the majority in the 'middle.' It follows from tenets 1) & 2) that economic systems which empower the middle class will witness a growth of democracy. Systems which disenfranchise the middle class will also witness a decline in democracy. Therefore democracy became the dominant form of governance around the globe on the heels of the Industrial Revolution --- in an age where skilled labour gave comparative advantage of one economic system over another. The Achilles heel of this paradigm proved to be the computer. It heralded unprecedented levels of automation that deskilled entire industries. With this development, the relevance of the middle class declined and the marriage between economics and democracy also ended. This in turn enabled, unjust, immoral and autocratic forms of government to flourish based solely on the abundance of unskilled labour. This unskilled labour however, will never see economic empowerment and therefore can never hope for political freedom, precisely because the economic advantage of their system is rooted in their fiefdom. This essentially marks a return to the tenets and precepts upon which the feudal system was based. Like the fall of Rome heralded the Dark Ages of Europe, the rise of autocracy marks a new Dark Age. However, realizing where human civilization has gone wrong, also charts the solution. The trends introduced by technology are irreversible on their own right. But the window of opportunity for autocratic systems to compete solely based on cheap labour alone is small. The question is how much economic advantage autocratic systems can amass before that window closes.What then, will close this window eventually? Unsustainability of growth models in the developed world ? No. That will merely precipitate a shift. What will close the window of opportunity for autocratic systems is acceleration of technology through an increase of productivity that negates the advantage of cheap labour. Information technology has already witnessed this acceleration of technology. There are many skilled jobs in information technology. No surprise, autocratic systems tend to shun, censor and control information technology. When manufacturing is subjected to the same acceleration of technology, then and only then will the requirement for skilled labour return to manufacturing. In concrete terms this means applying a paradigm akin to the internet to manufacturing: a flexible, layered architecture that modularizes and componentizes manufacturing: a manufacturing Autobahn if you will. When trivial tasks, like assembly are fully automated, unskilled labour becomes irrelevant. Yet the building and maintenance of such a "manufacturing Autobahn" would create largely local jobs. Advantage will then once more go to the most skilled society and therefore to democracy. The sooner we realize this and restructure our economies to accelerate technology the better.
SHBasse 02/02/2012
4. You got most of it right but not all!
Dear F.F. What you have not quite understood is the dynamics that separated the prosperity of nations from the prosperity of their internationalized firms. Any attempts to "dial the clock back" will lead to trade war if not to outright war between the old industrialized countries and the newly industrialized countries. Happily there is an alternative!
Show all comments
Page 1

All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with permission

Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.