1. Introduction: the end of Fukuyama by the passage of history

Fukuyama in 1992 told us clearly that the end of history was the victory of liberal democracy over the entire world as the last phase of human ideological development. However, that same history has played a trick on the North American political scientist, while nowadays the rejection of this form of political system (liberal democracy) and socioeconomic system (liberal capitalism) is cyclical and becomes more acute in times of crisis. Fukuyama himself had to accept the new scenario in an interview he gave to the London magazine New Statesman in October 2018, where heendorses thefact that liberal democracies do noteven try to define whata good lifeis, but instead leavethis into the hands of people who feel alienated and without purpose, and that is why we witness the increased of the phenomenonwherethe peopleidentify more with identarian projects and groups that givethem a senseof community. But that is not all, since, in a total contradiction with what he said in 1992, and in a clear sign of Fukuyama's defeat by history, he concludes that socialism should return. We do not know what Fukuyama comprehends by socialism; however, his statementsare there for furtheranalysis.

In the same way, and when we thought that nothing could make Fukuyama´s even more back out in relation to his first conclusions in 1992, not only by accepting the return of socialist policies in certain areas, in another part of the interview, and to the surprise of the interviewer and of us as well, he ended up accepting that Marx was right about some things, so from that very moment was the end of Fukuyama.

This confirms the fact that we are facing a new scenario in international politics, under a vision that is not linear, but cyclical, that is not unipolar, but multipolar, that is not individualistic but communitarian, that is not liberal but illiberal, and that is not capitalist but anti-capitalist or at least oriented to alternative forms, and that the marriage between democracy and capitalism (both liberal) has come to an end (by the emergence of illiberal democracies and stated-oriented capitalisms). The marriage that Fukuyama saw as the last frontier, became a final resting place dueto theimminent divorce of democracy and capitalism undertheexperience of theemerging powers, the rejection of globalization, the reaffirmation of patriotism as a popular phenomenon and the strengthening of the ethnic and cultural identities of the peoples.

2. The divorce between democracy and capitalism (both liberal) and the new illiberal horizon

This divorce is now an accomplished fact and only follows the path of disintegration, auguring the emergence of new politicaland socioeconomic systems, not because of thesubjectivity of ourwords, but because of the objectivity of the facts, and we go straight to the factual premises, paraphrasing Mounk and Foa (2018), over the course of a quarter of a century, liberal democracies have moved from a position of unprecedented economic strength to a position of unprecedented economic weakness... (...). Of the 15 countries in the world with the highest per capita incomes, nearly two-thirdsareilliberal democracies. Added to this we havethat BRICS have far surpassed the G7 in economic growth, relativeto world GDP (RT, 13.04.2023).

This reaffirms thefact that liberal democraciesarelosing ground in front of theso-called illiberal democracies that are having greater politicaland economic strength in theinternationalarenaand that provesthat,as Zizek (2018) said, the link between democracy and capitalism is definitely broken.

That said, it is clear that the new horizon is by no means as Fukuyama envisioned, but is getting closer every day to the vision of the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin of a multipolar world, characterized by geopolitics of large spaces, a reversibility of time, the advent of an authentic laocracy and the return to a communitarian vision of human existence as a revaluation of the particular ethos of the peoples. All this means that the new horizon is an illiberal one that will augur the emergence of new political and socioeconomic paradigms.

It is for these reasons that the socio-cultural factor is very present in the formation of the current geopolitical influence of the emerging powers and their particular political and socio-economic systems and structures, insofar as they have been able to recognize themselves as civilizations. As far as Peru in particular and the Ibero-American continent in general are concerned,we haveall thetoolsto turn the continent into a greatemerging power, however, Peru, like Ibero-American democracies in general, are still in a transition to increasingly illiberal models product of the constantstruggleswith theirlocal oligarchiesthatin general havealways been servileand functionalto themodels of liberal democracy and economy, particularly neoliberal sincethe Washington Consensus. However,every day the national will to opt for moreilliberal (that is, non-liberal) models is reaffirmed, both politically and economically, in order to change the economic position of Ibero-American nations always relegated to the function of simple producers of raw materials, and not of manufactured products with added value in the international division of labor.

3. The illiberal horizon as a transition stage to the Fourth Economic Theory

Returning to the emerging powers, this is the reason why people nowadays are talking more about illiberal democracies in detriment of liberal democracy, as well as the reason why we are hearing more about concepts like capitalism with Asian values, social market economies, socialism with Chinese characteristics and Russian nationalist capitalism in detriment of hegemonic liberal capitalism. That is, political and economic systems that are shown as mixed alternativesand thatare building the basis ofan economic multipolarity, ofa multipolareconomy, in theface of the hegemonic reality of the economy led by the United Statesand the Atlantic block,as well as in theface of the progressive decline of the globalizing trichotomy (in reference to individualism as an ethical-moral proposal, to liberal democracy as a political system and liberal capitalism as an economic system), and that (as Alain de Benoist, 2002 said) by its very totalitarian nature(in thesense of pretended totalization of politicaleconomic reality) isalways alien and indifferent to cultural heritages, collectiveidentities, patrimonies and national interests.

It is in this scenario that the Fourth Political Theory of Alexander Dugin is beginning to manifest itselfalso in theeconomic spectrum as Fourth EconomicTheory (which is based on three principlesthatweinferin our opinion, which without being limiting, we consider the central ones, as a synthesis derived from the exposition that Dugin makes on the subject: 1. Integral principle of both the worker as a subject and of work as an activity; 2. Principle of eschatological interpretation of economic reality; and 3. Principle of equilibrium between production and consumption). While on the progressive decadence of liberal capitalism (which currently corresponds to the third phase of capitalism in its form of financial capitalism), multipolarity is built in the economic as part of the illiberal horizon that is the transition to new economic-political formations that will far exceed the hegemonic framework, and this overcoming asaframework in turn fora realand qualitative evolution of human societies. For thespiritual development of humanity, and with it to new metaphysical horizons, the exploration of the cosmos and the expansion of humanity beyond the confines of the solar system.

To conclude thisanalysis, we precise that the Fourth Economic Theory asa new horizon of interpretation of the economy, is precisely that,an action guidefora new ontological orientation of the economy, and asa guide will beenriched by thetraditionsand culture of theancestral peoples of theworld and in this rest thetranscendence both for Peru and for the rest of the Ibero-American nations in their processes of emerging empowerment to be part of this nascent multipolarrealitywith civilizational dignity.That iswhy in Peru the politicaland socioeconomic studies oriented fourth theoretically have resulted in the creation of Crisolism as a Peruvian political and economic theory that integrates theaction guides of the Fourth Political Theory in general with Andean thought in particular,and in it with the Peruvian ancestral tradition, with the Peruvian Dasein, the Andean-Amazonian Dasein which is also enriched by the Hispanic tradition product of cultural syncretism, since, like the Peruvian people ancestry, with regard to the political and economic forms of the Andean world, as e.g. in the time of the Incas, they were always guided by two principles: reciprocity and redistribution. It is these two principles that shaped the Tawantinsuyo (Inca Empire)asa Hydraulic Empire(in referenceto theserviceand the wateradministration system in the Empire) that, with the nuances of the case, its vestiges, after almost half a millennium, are still in operation to this day, even benefiting nowadays many local populations. That iswhatwearefighting for,a politicaland socio-economic system for eternity