>>24442335
>there wont be any legitimate alternative to liberalism
The issue with blank statement like these is that they don't define their objects.
If you mean liberalism in the sense of a political system founded on the individual as its core unit then it's obvious that no other system will challenge it barring theocracies or unless someone manages to break free from the cogito.
If you mean liberalism in that of a political system upholding the individuality of each person then it's clear that it's in decline (rise in conservatism, religion, limits in birthrates and social cohesion, hostility towards immigration etc)

>Russia is an aging declining power [...]
Russia's been a mediocre country since the death of the USSR. What makes Russia a global player is its hostility and aggressivity, not its ideology

>China is also an aging power which presents no cohesive ideological vision to the world beyond trade and investments
lol lmao wtf, why do you think third worldies are all turning towards China ? They're the only ones that actually oppose the west and somehow manage to innovate and surpass it.

>Even right wing populism wont go as far as completely abandoning the core tenets of liberal thought.
You either have an extremely simplistic definition of liberalism or don't know what right wing populism (most likely both)

>>24443168
>Sure the country enforced a one-child policy and has an autocratic regime with a near total control of its population
>Sure chinese are very nationalists and are willing to do many sacrifices for their government
>But no you don't understand... they HAVE to suffer from a demographic decline !
>they just have to ok !

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Fukuyama was...right?