Critically assess the claim that the end of the Cold War represented a victory for liberal capitalism.

Table of contents Abstract 1. The end of Cold War 2. Global Warming a Social Climate Change and Death of Communism Conclusion References

Abstract The aim of given article is to problematize and characterize the post cold war ideological triumph of free market economy and liberal capitalism. By political and cultural approach to study the concept and the internal logic of the liberal capitalism and free market and their interaction, this article affirms that such the ideological paradigm can't serve universal as political-economical system of the state-nation, nor it would promote to become the guidelines or general principles in the international relations. Besides, this ideology cannot work in the majority of developing countries, and in long-term prospect it can decrease in established industrial democracies in connection with problems and contradictions with caused by free market forces. The conclusion asserts that the liberal capitalism finally would be market driven, and "an invisible hand" magic of the free market can operate in all aspects of human life and can, hence, marketize for right of each separate person. Liberal capitalism is considered to be the future for which the present twenty first century of history actually aspires, in developed as well as in developing countries. This article is devoted revaluation of a paradigm of Fukuyama history, by correcting some popular beliefs in it. (Darwin, 2001)

1. The end of Cold War Disintegration of the USSR communism in the early nineties amplifies influence of liberalism in international relations and academic circles; a theoretical tradition long thought was rejected by perspectives which underline periodically aspects of the international relations. In a confident teleology revival of Liberalism, Fukuyama asserted in the early nineties that disintegration of Soviet Union has shown that liberal democracy had no serious ideological competitors: it was a final point of ideological evolution of mankind and the definitive form of the human government. It is thus an argument which has been strengthened with recent transition to democracy in Latin America Africa, and East Asia. Fukuyama defines, the ending of cold war symbolizes victory of the so called an ideal state, also the special type of political economy named as liberal capitalism which can't be rectified as further growth is not possible in development of main principles and institutions. According to Fukuyama, the East -West conflict coming to an end proved that liberal capitalism was undividedly as a model, and a final point for mankind in economic, social and political development. Like many other liberals, he visualize history as progressive, linear and oriented, and convinced that there exists a fundamental process on work that dictates the general evolutionary model for all societies in this world, like a general history of humankind in a direction of liberal democracy. The belief of Fukuyama that political economy and western style of governments which is the ultimate and final destination for all races will finally reach and creates a number of problems for Orthodoxy in the international relations. First, his statement that political, economical and social development comes to an end in liberally-capitalist democracy, assumes that the modernization with western style do not face a threat to mankind as posed by communism, and finally command global consent. Secondly, the argument of Fukuyama assumes that cultural and national distinctions are not a barrier to the victory of liberal capitalism and liberal democracy which may face a little incase of some serious resistance. Thirdly, the thesis of Fukuyama brings up the vital questions of political community

and governance. What are the consequences of globalization for the states and their sovereign powers? (Fukuyama, 2004) The most important thing, Fukuyama considers that in a human history, it is feasible to judge progress by dissolution of the global conflict and acceptance of legitimacy rights which have developed eventually in internal political orders. It is the approach "from within-outside" in the international relations in which the behavior of the state can be judged by studying their endogenous systems. It also leads to Doyle's claim that liberalistic democracies unequivocally are ready to refuse force application in relations with each other which purpose rejects the statement of the realist that anarchical character of our international system which means that the states are in constant struggle for security and power. (Fukuyama, 2001) The argument of Fukuyama is not a simple argument that liberalistic capitalism has endured threat to Marxism. It means - neo-realism also has forgotten all macro-political tendencies in modern world of politics: expansion of liberal peace zone. Challenging the opinion that anarchy conditions in the international behavior is the argument given by Doyles that there exists pacific countries that have learned to solve the disputes, without supporting violence. The spreading of this pacific ideology is the most significant feature of the post period of-Communist landscape. If this justification can be satisfied, it would be valuable come back for the international theory though it has been challenged by Carr in his criticism of a liberal utopia in 1940. It will represent also serious threat for discipline which prevailed until recently that waging a war is endemically feature which cannot be thrown due to quest of states to attain the superiority. (Fukuyama, 1989) More seriously, liberal capitalism being a model of social class also seems to be vulnerable. On the world map China rising as a world super power and attempt of Russia to restore its former status of a super state in new Putinesque style of authoritative rule give weight to that the modern 21st century can be characterize not by mere union of liberalism and capitalism but, more likely, more ominous by authoritarianism and capitalism merger. Russia,

China and Islam countries, of course, all long served an exemplary figure of totalitarianism backwardness, despotism, in Western specialized imagination and blend of these ancient carriages in last decade actually served to grant escalation of authoritarianism in the West.( Brzezinski, 1990) 2. Global Warming A Social Climate Change and Death of Communism In long-term prospect, however, "global warming" can be, a question, which is most seriously trouble concept of Fukuyama as it says, liberal capitalism symbolize the steadiest model of a society and definitive a final point of ideological evolution of mankind. Threats by militant Islamic countries, Russia, China all can be borrowed historically from jargons of totalitarianism, medieval fanaticism and oriental despotism. Unlike threat which represents "climate change" is something absolutely new and the questions on that, if the industrial capitalism in its authoritative and liberal mode, will it be finally not too destructive on our planet and arises to be steady. To much larger extent the western affluence can be prolonged gradually worldwide if only poor societies could find a correct combination of a policy mix and it has been basic common ideology of all European - American development and modernization programs. Conservative rightists and humanitarian left-liberalist, probably, do not agree how in the best way to reach at this purpose, but each of them divide on this concept of the western lifestyle which means a liberalism and a combination, should and can be extended more or less across worldwide. But should that all these modernizations programs basically assume that if poor society is to prosper in modern world system that they should produce the increasing quantity of the goods for trading. If they want to keep this level of expansion of manufacture and trade prospers, it means that they should, consume these goods in the increasing quantities that, in turn, demands huge mass media and advertizing devices, through which persons constantly urge to open new requirements. Nevertheless the difficulty is as industrial capitalism has scattered between various continents in the autocratic version or liberally-democratic, constantly increasing demand in production and the consumption, necessary seem more and more to be too

ecologically harmful to be feasible, at least in long-term prospect and probably even in shortterm prospect. (Kurtz, 2002) Speaking in short, contra-indications of Fukuyama, it is definitely complicated to understand, how the western style of a liberalist capitalist society which at its present mode can become at once completely global and nevertheless to be environmentally sustainable. This raises some important question for the scholars of liberal capitalism. Since resources of the Earth aren't infinite, and industrial capitalism could spread in some parts of world during the last two centuries apparently seems to be causing a big damage to our ecological system, the question arises, do the western liberal capitalists are ready to overlook and justify the existing gaps among wealthy and famine countries on this planet as mandatory for maintaining the prices for western style of life? And, if the world is divided on rich regions i.e. Western Europe, US and poorer regions i.e. considerable part of Asia and Africa, isn't comprehensible future but something to overcome, then how the global wealth is going to be distributed evenly if it is not possible to extend on liberalistic industrial capitalist model, which today has proved ecologically harmful even at present rates of a planetary inequality? In short the contra-indications of Fukuyama, how it can be understood that the liberalistic capitalist society which prevails at present can at once become completely global and nevertheless to be ecologically steady. But the confusion here consists not only in industrial capitalism because economic system is ecologically predatory, it is also serious common problem in "global warming", that finally, apparently, demands new ways of political governance which should pay priority attention to global collective blessing, instead of individual rights sacred for liberalism. To put differently, while at worst it could be observed that liberal capitalism recoil in favor of the authoritative state version of capitalism or fundamentalist or by combining of these of two, the best case, which one to explore is some really serious coordinated attempts to tackle "climate change" - would appear to be demanding for more communal type than the liberal and neoliberal policy to which presently the Western World is much committed. (Carothers, 2003)

Anyhow, claiming that end of cold war represented victory of liberal capitalism best possible frameworks in which such human problems can be is solved - seems to be much more unprotected than Fukuyama forecasted. The best possible reasoning is that since liberal capitalism as social model looks vulnerable where capitalism is considered unique game in a city, there do not exists surety that the ruling capitalist class will honor liberalism in the future. The European social democracy or the New Deal of USA could be a valuable system which can be honored and cannot be rejected at once through crude dictatorship or one-party system, but during long war of abrasion when it was not necessary any more. To put it briefly, with rise of Christian, Judaic Islamic fundamentalism of authoritative state capitalism in Russia and China, and also new level authoritarianism in the USA and the Western Europe, authorized under the slogan wars on terror, collectively make deeply malignant conjuncture, impious collision of the reactionary forces which is hostile to socialism and also to liberalism. Today, some of the most densely populated countries - China, Russia, the North Africa states where electoral process is no more than referendum to mere ruling of rubber stamp. And the differences arising between republicans and democrats in USA on economic problems are useless, and both parties so obviously depend on corporate money resources and corporate mass-media approve that elections in many respects are approval of ritual reigning duopoly. More close to the home it can be seen, how the European elite rulers recently brushed all obstacles in formation of EU super-state as witnessed by the dismissal of popular referendum in Holland and France and now in Ireland, - assumes a similar tendency on fall of democracy in the Western World. And if diluting of democracy represents a threat to liberal capitalism as social model, of "global warming" than industrial capitalism too begins a failure on tests of ruthless history of laboratory. That means, if some excellent global way of manufacture and distribution of wealth and governance of a society cannot be resolved, then it could be a sad time at the end of history according to Fukuyama. (Fukuyama, 2001)

Despite of such opposition and contradictions, the belief that liberal capitalism is best solution for mankind and society and there exists no efficient alternatives would remain well established across the world and do not anticipate that in future it will ever change at any time. Conclusion In a long term, political history will always be doubtful, as ability of the human to analyze the present, without mentioning to think of the future, always had been limited, but as the threat from Soviet socialist model ceased, the capitalist West consistently reduced it to more socialist obligations and cancelled such concessions. Speaking in short, it is complicated to understand, how the western liberalistic capitalist society can become at once completely global and, nevertheless, to be ecologically steady. It resulted liberal capitalism appeared in position of undivided ideological domination, the situation which has no precedents in almost two centuries. Thus, it would refute the claim that end of cold war is victory for liberal capitalism. It would assume that authoritative instead of liberal capitalism will be the future of the 21st century of history which is actually aspiring on this planet.

References

Bilgrami, Akeel (2003). The Clash within Civilizations. Daedalus 132, no. 3 (Summer 2003), pp. 89-91. Brzezinski Z (1990). The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century, New York: Macmillan. Carothers, Thomas (2003). Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terrorism, Foreign Affairs, January/February, pp. 83-95. Darwin, John G (2001). The International History Review, no. 3 (September 2001), pp. 746748. Fenves, Peter (1994). The Tower of Babel Rebuilt: Some Remarks on the End of History. In After History?: Francis Fukuyama and His Critics, edited by Timothy Burns. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Fukuyama F (2004). The End of History and the Last Man. - M.: "AST publishing house".

Fukuyama F (1989). 'The end of history?'. The National Interest, pp 3-5. Fukuyama F (1998). A Reply to My Critics. The National Interest, no. 18 (winter /99 1998), pp. 22-27. Fukuyama F (2001). Social Capital, Civil Society and Development. Third World Quarterly, no. 1, pp. 9-18. Huntington, Samuel P (1997). After Twenty Years: The Future of the Third Wave. Journal of Democracy, no. 4, pp. 5-10. Kurtz, Stanley (2002). The Future of "History". Francis Fukuyama Vs. Samuel P. Huntington. Political Review (June 2002), pp. 43-57. Smith A (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. - M.: Penguin Books.