Railways and The End Of History

I was rolling a model railway car over the cover of Francis Fukuyama's book "The End Of History". I wondered what it meant, if anything. I had just repaired the car and was running it on the book's cover to see if it was working smoothly. 

It may sound mischievous of me thinking that a model railway car and The End Of History could have something in common. It sounds absurd. But as I stared at them both, wondering what possible connection they might have, it came to me that it had to do with an order, a railway order and a world order. Looking at the railway car I  began thinking of all the railways in the world.  And I thought, without railway systems and the networks they established throughout the world there would be no end of history as Fukuyama postulated. What he postulated is that humankind has arrived at a final world order in human governance. And as I see it, that final world order could not have come without the initial order railways brought to the world, which was quite significant and revolutionary. The railways brought an organization and a standardization to the world that had never existed before. Without that organization and standardization occurring first it is very doubtful we would have reached the end point in human governance Fukuyama believes we’ve reached today.

The railway ushered in the modern world. For one, it increased human mobility, thus facilitated democracy and individualism, fundamental building blocks of modernity and progress. It was the first form of networking, starting off the complex and feedback systems that would run and connect the modern world. It introduced the world to new methods of communication and the time zones that would help things run more smoothly. It expanded the management skills essential for large enterprises to maintain and sustain our future. In all it helped bridge the differences between nations in a common activity.

‘The end of the line’ is a railway terminology. It refers to a terminus, a train station at the end of a rail line. There is a similarity with Fukuyama's The End Of  History and its idea that we have reached a terminus in human governance. However, Fukuyama is not saying that because we have reach an end point we’ve come to a finish and there is no more to accomplish. We can still journey on. The railway terminus, like the end point it human governance, doesn’t mean we have come to a complete stop or reached an absolute but to a reference point from which to expand. What the terminus at the end of history is saying is that we reached an end but not an end end, for  we can improve on what we have ended up with.

   

Just to explain, Fukuyama's end of history treatise was predicated on the collapse of communism and the downing of the Berlin Wall in 1989. To him it meant that the battle between East and West was over and the West had won. For years East and West, Communism vs Democracy,  had been in a power struggle to determine what form of human governance the world would most benefit from. Today, after centuries of experimentation with many types of government, Fukuyama has observed that we are now left with one, the liberal democracy, not a governance that just materialized but that has been fomenting in the West for centuries. 

Globalization has been integrating and unifying the world for centuries, at least since the time of Christopher Columbus coming to the New World. And throughout the centuries many forms of human governance have been employed, from monarchies to authoritarianism to the liberal democracy that is in ascendency today. One thing that Fukuyama argues about why liberal democracy triumphed is because it has proven best at maintaining and sustaining our modern world, and best at meeting human needs and aspirations. But one thing he didn’t delve into was that as the world has integrated and become more interdependent under globalization there was need for a standardized system of doing business. For efficiency and continuity it could no longer do with competing systems that tended to obstruct the other. The world has been on a trajectory of consolidation. It’s hard to imagine History having a trajectory, an aim, such as devising means of sustainability, like railways and liberal democracy. 

A further connection between the two is duality. With the railway it is obvious, there are two parallel tracks on which trains run. And the end of history culminates with a dualistic form of human governance, liberal democracy, liberal satisfying human material needs, democracy, idealistic needs. If there is a difference it’s that with railway tracks the twain shall never meet since that would defeat its function. But with liberal democracy the twain often meets and clash, challenging the other so that they remain vital and legitimate (which is another story). The rigid steel tracks of railways are meant to stay separate while the to strands (double helix) of liberal democracy have evolved to mingle with each other.

I don’t thing it’s an accident or coincidence  that the railway and liberal democracy were invented in the same nation, Britain, a nation that was at the forefront of building the modern world. 

                                                                             xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'd like to mention the Trans-Siberian Railway, a video of which I watched the other day. Tsar Nicholas II really pushed for it to be built, for the honor and glory of Russia. I am thinking that by building this railroad, which was devilishly difficult because of the terrains it went through, the Tsar may have sown the seeds of  his own demise. Without that railroad it would have been very difficult for the Bolsheviks to bring the forces of revolution together in such a vast country. The railway was a network that played right into the hands of  the revolutionaries. Furthermore, the Tsar spent so much money on the railway that there was little money left for social programs, programs that may have ameliorated the discontent among his people, thus preventing the Russian Revolution.   

   

Liberal democracy

I was asked "How does companies like Monsanto, Bayer, big oil, etc. fit into the picture of liberal democracy?  There is nothing democratic about the reach of their power and their influence over our society. "

One thing that got me interested in human governance is the contradictions we live with, that we espouse democracy but yet we don't always practise it. Liberal democracy is a great example of a contradictory system. And what caught my attention is that the world is contradictory by nature and would not function  well without it. As the ancient Greek philosopher Hericlitus observed, you do away with contradiction you do away with reality. Hegel also understood this and followed with his dialectic.  What is significant to me is that liberal democracy captures and harnesses this contradiction so that it acts in a positive way, and be as mutually beneficial and inclusive as possible. But this contradiction invariable brings with it flaws and perversions.

Human nature is inherently flawed and perverse. The flawed part goes without saying but the perverse aspect is not so easily understood. By perverse I mean the irony of things, like we do the wrong thing for the right reason or most often learn by doing the wrong thing first and then doing the right thing after. In a sense we learn by doing the opposite or in a backwards fashion. It's the same thing with liberal democracy. But liberal democracy doesn't deny its existence or tries to abolish it like authoritarian regimes have tried (in attempts to create utopian societies) but tempers and contains it in order that it work for the betterment of the whole.  

Hegel talked about keeping things alive and awake, preventing them from atrophying. Liberal democracy is a governing system based on two philosophies, materialism and idealism ( authoritarianism is unipolar), liberal being the material part and democracy the ideal. They are two ideas about how people should be governed.  They clash. But they clash in a positive way. Together they constitute the DNA or the double helix of human governance. They challenge each other in order to stay alive and awake so that they don't atrophy. This does not make for a perfect system but for a working system  because of the networking and  feedback system it employs. This networking helps people keep in touch and communicating, thus enhancing the deliberative process of democracy. 

The corporate world is the liberal part of liberal /democracy. Liberal also stands for 'capitalism', which the corporate world is part of. In many respects it does not act democratically because of  its entrenched self-interests. But perversely and ironically it keeps the democracy aspect of liberal/democracy alive and awake, as does democracy in turn keep the liberal aspect from completely taking over. Each aspect keeps the other from going overboard and completely dominating the system or our lives. The corporate world also gives democracy something to work with. It introduces issues of democratic importance that would otherwise not be raised. But most import, it keeps things churning so that the system does not succumb to entropy and collapse like communism did. The relationship is all about renewal and rejuvenation, through the antagonism each directs at the other.

Democracy was never given to us on a silver platter. It has had to be fought for and won, mostly by material means. The  material, liberal aspect  has helped us gain and keep it. But it is like a tug-of-war. And it's always a balancing act to preserve the gains. The corporate, capitalist world acts in a selfish manner and does things that gets the ire of democrats. But without this irritant democracy would most like languish and atrophy. Corporatism also brings a discipline to the proceedings that democracy would not likely have on its own.

Ironically corporatism and big companies has helped entrench democracy. They have developed many of the communication tools that have expanded democracy, like newspapers, television, movies and computers. They have expanded work forces all over the world thus empowering people by helping them with material gains and thus giving them a voice in the community. (We can see this happening in China, as happened in South Korea and Taiwan) Corporations have expanded people's choices and therefore democratic rights. They have helped break down social barriers towards employing women, gays and minorities, which has translated into broader social changes. 

Corporations haven't done any of this out of the goodness of their hearts but for pragmatic reasons, that it's good for business and the bottom line. And this highlights the perverseness of the democratic process, that you need  selfish, undemocratic institutions in order to rightfully gain and entrench democratic principles. For instance, the end of segregation in America would not have occurred if African-Americans were not first employed by corporations. The material gains they received from corporations empower and embolden them to demand equal rights. From this legislation followed, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Democracy is always a work in progress and capitalism is one of the perverse mechanisms that keeps it proceeding and progressing.