There's a hard tealiology, right, where liberal democracy in like,

guess a Hegelian sense, a Fukuyama and sense is the end point of history where,

you know, things have unfolded to the point where this is the truest expression of human freedom and I suppose also human bondage, right, that this is the end state, know there's this conception but the I don't

know the the contingent fact that the contingent aspects of this are really interesting.

I think whenever you bring, because you can look at it in terms of like idealism versus materialism,

but you can also think of it in terms of structure versus contingency, right?

And I think that they're able to resurrect a lot of really interesting agency out of history,

which I think is really powerful.

Whether it stands on its own in terms of the evidence,

going back to what you were talking about in the beginning,

where they've chosen, politically,

they've chosen a narrative that cuts against that and they're maybe trying to

pull tease out from history more than history is able to actually provide.

Yeah, like what they explicitly say when they will get near to material conditions.

They will gesture towards them and then they will stop the text to be like, yeah, if we take

this too far down this road, then human agency gets lost.

We can no longer see where humans had any power over their conditions.

And since we're trying to get people to be politically active in the here and now

we want them to think the opposite that we want to emphasize hey look at

about history what people have been able to do when they've cooperated

yeah we can do that now and i think that is a useful thing to want to do. The problem with it though is that to do it they have to

fatally undermine our ability to actually grasp the conditions that we're going to be working

...