Talk:The End of History and the Last Man

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Utter counterfactual nonsense

As I said at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.154.17 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments Supporting Fukuyama

One of the arguments supporting Fukuyama is the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT). While this in itself is true the article also mentions that ethnic wars and refugee's have declined in number. I'm pretty sure this can't be true. I've taken several political science classes at the University of California at Irvine which say just the opposite, that the end of the cold war brought about a huge increase in ethnic and intrastate conflict. Rob 06:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I capitalized "Democratic Peace Theory" because the acronym is used later in the article. You guys!! THIS time it was in the next paragraph. Sometimes it's at the end of the article that an acronym is used and the reader has NO idea where it came from. Anyone in the upper reaches of Wikipedia take note: Capitalize and note (???) ALL acronyms. Please!! (ooops)66.235.11.41 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding the Dean Babst, Michael Doyle and Bruce Russett writings, DPT have only one major conclusion: a war between two democracies has a very low probability to occur. But as Doyle wrote: "no one can argue such a war is impossible". (Kant liberal legacies and foreign affairs). It does NOT concern in any case ethnic conflicts. It does NOT concern war between democracy and non-democratic countries. On the contrary, quantitative studies show that democracies are more war prone with non-liberals countries.

"Fukuyama and friends" arguments often result of a quick and wrong reading of the DPT articles. Since all the countries are not democratic-liberal, no one can argue for a quick pacification of the international relations from the DPT assessments. DPT and its supporter do not necessary support Fukuyama’s theory, and often do the contrary.

At last, Kant’s writings about History only conclude about a possible pacification of mankind. The end of history he described was not something sure from his point of view.

Find my profile on the French wikipedia as " seb' "

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.204.185 (talk • contribs) 16:48, May 1, 2007

The concept of the End of history has been ridiculed by many, especially after the September 11th terrorist attacks. For the Hegelian dialectic to end, human nature would have to change (IMHO). Chadloder 08:11 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to explain what the 'end of history' thesis actually means, becuase people insist on making the most basic of all mistakes and confusing 'history' with 'events'. In fact it wouldn't matter if there was a nuclear war, and most human life was wiped out: Fukuyama would simply reply that it would take a few more millenia for parliamentary democracy to flourish. Also I changed 'retracted' to 'qualified': Fukuyama has never retracted his end of history thesis, for the above reason. A much better critique of Fukuyama would be to state that his theory was in no way new: Hegel and Kojeve had fundamentally said much the same thing (as Fukuyama admits). (BScotland).

I think because of some of this the article is a bit too charitable to Fukuyama. With such a wide definition his thesis is essentially silly and improvable. The fact that there are still philosophies which, at least potentially, offer a challenge to liberal democracy is a very valid critique of his thesis. Moreover the line of defense you lay out would, in and of itself, invalidate his thesis. If Democracy was destined to triumph then history (as he defines it) couldn't have ended because it never really existed. Furthermore such long range criticism opens him up to a counter Marxist critique of people like Meghnad Desai who would say that Marxism WILL eventually triumph but perhaps not for centuries or millenia.

There is another problem I see with this ideology. Like Marxists, Fukuyama sees history as a progressive narrative that builds towards a dramatic conclusion (though the author concludes that this finality would be far from "utopic"). The emergence of Islamic fundamentalism provides a dramatic counterexample, as others have mentioned.

Not only is this a new movement, but it also is a challenge to the progressive narrative claim. The adaptation of this ideology, for better or for worse, would revert the world to the 12th century. Is democracy the champion ideology? Seemingly, yes. Would it be difficult to destroy due to the power of the nations that have adapted it? Again, yes.

For these reasons, Fukuyama sees no possible challenge once the world has adapted democracy, a very Cold War-esque perspective. He fails to note that the antagonist doesn't have to be an outside force - the system could collapse due to internal failings including, but not limited to, economic catastrophe.

--Hohenstauff 23:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Universal History. Fukuyama (and Marxists) claim legitimecy from Hegel's "Hegelian Dialectic", the idea that history as a progression towards a better state. Most professional historians see this as flawed, it is coming up with a Universal Theory on history first (induction), cherry picking the facts to fit your model, and ignoring the contradictions. Rather, real history is done via deductive reasoning, looking at all the facts and coming up with conclusions. Hegel, and Fukuyama and Marx, were philosophers (to put it kindly), not historians. Stbalbach 00:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I am baffled as to why people still insist that 'Islamic Fundamentalism' (a phrase used in the West, and only in the West, to describe many different ideologies and religious beliefs) offers a 'fundamental' challenge to Parliamentary democracy. To reiterate, whenever such states have been established they were quickly defeated by the superior military powers of the democracies. Moreover, the appeal of (for example) Osama Bin Laden is wildly overstated in the West. Opinion polls, even nowadays (for example) state that for most Palestinians the most admirable political system is.....Israel's. The idea that Arabs actually enjoy living in US backed dictatorships is a pervasive (and vaguely racist) myth. On the contrary, it is the fact that such dictatorships exist and are enthusiastically supported by the US that is the cause of much Arab militancy. George Bush is despised because he is seen as being a hypocrite when he talks about democracy, not because he promises democracy per se.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have not been defeated bu democratic states. Moreover your analysis is locked into a paradigm which sees the state as the only legitimate and meaningful international actor. A lot of commentators in the west have seen fundamentalist Islam, and especially the developement of what some have termed "viral Al Qaeda" as a direct challenge to the hegemony of the state system in international affairs. Moreover I think it's entirely valid to talk about Fundamentalist Islam as at least a potential challenge to liberal democracy since a number of the philosphers of Fundamentalist Islam see it in precisely that way.

The fact is (and it is a fact) that there is currently no serious alternative to Parliamentary democracy. Neither is any likely to develop at any point in the near future. It may well be the case that at some impossibly distant future time, some alternative will be found, but let's face facts. When I die, the country i live in (the UK) will still be a parliamentary democracy, as will all of Europe, as will the US, as will Australia. It is also highly likely that most of Africa/South America will stay democratic, because there is no serious intellectual alternative. Even if capitalism did 'collapse': so what? People would just go about recreating it, becuase, to repeat, no serious alternative has been developed.

Yes, that is your opinion.

-G

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic democracy?

"(...) either they will become Islamic democracies (like Turkey) or they will simply disintegrate." I wonder if "Turkey = islamic democracy" is the author's opinion, or an interpretation -and what does it mean in the first place? Can you call France a 'christian democracy'? Just like France, Turkey is a secular democracy. Gandy.Phoebus 23:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Change it if you want. I merely meant that an 'Islamic' government currently rules the country, but as you correctly point out, this doesn't make Turkey an Islamic democracy.

Nietzsche's Last Man

Was Nietzsche's concept of the Last Man explicitly implied in the title? The article makes no mention of it per se, though it sounds implied, so I added a link at the end.

Addition to Anonymous User's above post:

More recently, if "Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Bioechnology Revolution" suggests that biotechnology will enable us to control our evolution and make ourselves unequal, seems to me that regardless of race, one could truly become a Ubermensch... Perhaps this is a question for the main Fukuyama page? (I'm no expert, so I don't know.)

Max Way 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Straus?

Hi all,

I'm curious as to the Fukuyama's possible connection with Leo Straus, especially as Fukuyama does not desire the neoconservative label associated with Paul Wolfewitz (sp?) and other of Straus's pupils. There doesn't seem to be any source for this connection... I could be wrong, but as an interested student using these articles as launching points for research some measure of citing would be helpful.

Regards,

Max Way (Renaissance College Student)

Max Way 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Fukuyama's book "American at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy." There's a chapter on Strauss.

link

http://www.marion.ohio-state.edu/fac/vsteffel/web597/Fukuyama_history.pdf#search='end%20of%20history'

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddus (talk • contribs) 02:18, May 4, 2006

The graph is "cheating"

I just think the graph is cheating because its starts off at 35, and I first thought that friendly regimes were down too just a couple, but no. There are 36-37 left. Stop playing with graphs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.174.24 (talk • contribs) 17:33, October 29, 2006

Title

It wouldn't be so controversial or misinterpretted if he had titled it better. "End of History" has an eschatological sound to it. It's unnecessarily dramatic.

"Coming to a theater near you..."

(explosions and car chases)

"...The End of History!...History will end Summer 2007"

Schwartzenegger: "I'll end your history"

Jigen III 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, i think this guy is a complete nutjob. ````````````17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)~~

Concerning a rebuttal found in the criticism section

"Some researchers have found empirical evidence that democracies are better at reducing poverty as compared with non-democracies.[8]"

-I have not even read the link because the research supporting this claim is not what I am contending. What I am saying is that statement is reductionist, as I'm sure there are many variables involved (eg. There are also arguments that the liberal democracies which multilateral institutions such as the WTO, IMF, and WB are supported by, ideologically and finanacially, are in fact stymieing innovative economic progress in many countries: Jamaica, Indonesia, etc...)

If this statement is to be kept in the article, I think it should be expanded upon somewhat (at least to address the complexity of the issue, so it doesn't come off as reductionist as I think it does now). Moreover, it certainly won't suffice to say only "It's more complex than this though" or something along those lines.

Also, I think it is relevant to the article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.118.115 (talk • contribs) 19:09, November 13, 2008

Empirical evidence is never pointed out by those it dosen't favour. Sioraf (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derrida, Specters of Marx and liberal democracy

Considering the empirical evidence used to "discredit" Derrida's book, I thought I could contribute to this discussion, considering I've read this book many times. Derrida is IN NO WAY trying to indict liberal democracy as an effective means of government or removing poverty, etc. What he critiques is rather the notion that by defeating communism, we have reached the end point in our political evolution and have identified the main political ideal that will magically make humanity a happy species. He points out the problems of that time (late 80's-early 90's) and how these still exist in a post-cold war world and what needs to be done to rectify the political structures that permit them or allow those injustices to take place. Perhaps also the inevitiability of new problems that will arise even with systems such as free market democracies. That's a crude summation of his point, among others in that book. The larger point is a critique of the idea that with the defeat of communism, we've vanquished Marx and his legacy for good. It should also be remembered that Derrida himself was quite a bit of an anti-communist himself, having protested injustices in socialist Poland (along with Michel Foucault) and advocating majority democracy in South Africa, among other places. The book itself (while not dismissing Marx crudely) does not provide a doctrinaire or entirely uncritical affirmation of Marx's thought and it was extremely criticized, if not dismissed, by most major Marxist thinkers at the time, even by some of his own Marxist-oriented acolytes, such as Gayatri Spivak. Afghan Historian (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say anything else, I will state that your interpretation of Derrida's thoughts on the matter seems pretty well-justified, and so what I say here applies to the text of the article not your exposition of Derrida. Moving on then, the problem with the passage on Derrida's work in the article is that Derrida seems to have a very... unique take on matters of fact. I understand full well that Derrida is a liberal arts theorist and not an actual economist or scientist, so he may be woefully under-qualified to make such claims of fact, but that does not excuse the incredulous and just plain incorrect statement that "violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of... humanity." When you consider the genocides and famines (the gulags, Holodomor of Ukraine come to mind) not to mention wanton destruction of wealth carried out under the Stalin-era Soviet Union and Maoist China, I would disagree. My counter-statement amounts to the fact that the spread of western liberal democracy has drastically cut back on the violence, famine, and economic oppression experienced in the world. Taking your point, Afghan Historian, I would agree that western liberal democracy seems to stall-out when it comes to solving the massive crises of places like Africa. In fairness, if you look at the intellectual attention that groups like TED Talks have given to these matters, and that TED Talks could only effectively exist in a western liberal capitalist democracy, I am optimistic for western mixed/capitalist democracy on this point.

76.199.175.33 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhh, I'm just gonna edit out that Mark Steyn nonsense until further notice.

In his 2006 book America Alone, Mark Steyn argued that Europe and its liberal democracy were threatened by declining birthrates of native Christian Europeans in conjunction with a dramatic population growth of Muslim immigrants, who did not share Europeans' affinity for tolerance and democracy (this is sometimes known as the "Eurabia" theory). Steyn argued that the chief cause of this trend was a lack of cultural confidence among native Europeans. In the book, Steyn wrote: "One of the most obvious refutations of Francis Fukuyama’s famous thesis The End Of History – written at the victory of liberal pluralist democracy over Soviet Communism – is that the victors didn’t see it as such. Americans – or at least non-Democrat-voting Americans – may talk about “winning” the Cold War but the French and the Belgians and Germans and Canadians don't. Very few British do... pace Fukuyama, there was no sense on the Continent that our Big Idea had beaten their Big Idea."[13]

This guy is a clucking loon.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utopian

The entire premise is Utopian in the worst sense. The End of History is comparable to the Kingdom of God on Earth, the Second Coming, the Last Judgement, The New Age, the Aquarian Age, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.151.239 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The End of History - CANCELLED DUE TO LACK OF INTEREST

As of 2016 most commentators seem to agree that the future of liberal democracy is far from assured and we may even have passed 'Peak Democracy'. I think this may mean it's time for a re-appraisal of this article? Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The End of History and the Last Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to "Radical Islam, tribalism, and the "Clash of Civilizations"

I have changed the last para of the above mentioned section, as the previous was the wrong depiction of Fukuyama's views, in his Wall Street Opinion Piece. Please review them, if anyone get a chance. Fukuyama's opinion piece can be found on the following link: https://englishmatters.gmu.edu/issue6/911exhibit/emails/fukuyama_wsj.htm If anyone wishes to change it, I would highly appreciate, if we could discuss it first. Thanks a lot. Zed J Alexander (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the previous version was a "wrong depiction." Could you explain the issues with the previous version of the article text? Thanks. The new version is serviceable, but not necessarily any more accurate, in my opinion. I fixed a few grammar errors in the new version as well. I inserted "toward" because the "evolution" phrase did not seem to make sense the way it was written, but I think the original meaning still remains.--MattMauler (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]