Date: Tue, 4 Apr 95 16:56:54 CST From: "jim blair" Subject: The END of HISTORY and the LAST MAN, a book rewiew The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama The Free Press, 1992. This is a very impressive book, with 48 pages of footnotes and a 10 page bibliography. It deals with many aspects of culture, history and political social, and economic philosophy. But the central thesis is quite simple. In the 1960's I was a student at the U of Wisconsin, a hotbed of radical Left activism. There were often debates between the various socialist factions and sometimes liberals and even conservatives took part. It seemed clear to me that the proponents of free market economics ("running dogs of Capitalism" as they were known then) had the best LOGICAL arguments for their case. They compared different countries and different times in history to see what policies had worked best. They were so effective that by the time I graduated they were referred to as "the intellectual Swiss Guard for the Economic Royalists". Most socialists then had a simpleminded plan for some benevolent government agency to run the country and eventually the world. It would cure poverty and injustice, if only we would recognize the need to give them absolute power. IS HISTORY GOING ANYWHERE? But the most cryptic and compelling case made on the Left came from Marxists, who said the whole debate of socialism vs capitalism was moot. There were Laws of Nature which dictated the development of social systems. History was not a series of random events but a progression, rather like embryology. There were stages of which a society must follow in sequence. Individual people couldn't change the direction of History, they could only assist or resist the movement. And Karl Marx had discovered the sequence: from primitive to agricultural to feudalism to capitalism and then on to socialism and finally to Communism, the final state of society. The end point of History. And for each stage of society, there is a set of human values suited to it. Feudal Man is not the same as Capitalist Man. There was a First Man and there would be a Last Man. Our discussions about whether socialism or capitalism was "better" was like a group of young children arguing that being a child was better than becoming an adult. Maybe it is. No job pressure. Play all day. But so what? They will grow up. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Marxism as dropped off of most peoples horizon. But the idea of History as a progression remains. It is the claim of this book that there is a Universal History. But the end point is the Liberal Democracy political system and Capitalism. The type of society that exists in the USA, Canada, Western Europe and Japan. There have been numerous discussions on the net about USA vs Europe or Canada, etc. When you consider the range of societies in human history (Kingdoms, Communism, Theocracy, Military Rule, etc) the differences between the these liberal democracies is minor. They are just variations of the same system. And they STARTED from very different social structures. Fukuyama sees a convergence towards a common society. The End of History. The world is not there yet. Several Asian nations (Singapore, Indonesia, even China) have accepted Capitalism but not liberal democracy. YET. He thinks they will. WHAT ELSE IS THERE? The only real alternative social structure to rival it today is the Islamic Republic. It exists in Iran and has strong support in Egypt, Algeria and other countries with mostly moslem populations. He thinks it has no future as a movement because it has no appeal OUTSIDE of the moslem world. But he does not consider a rebirth of religious states, of which the Islamic Republic would be one of several. There are those in the US who would support the concept of a Christian Nation. There were Catholic Nations (the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella). Israel is torn between those who want a liberal democracy and those who want a Jewish State. The book gives several reasons why the capitalist liberal democracy will satisfy human needs for both wealth and recognition, and thus be a stable system. Socialism has lost its luster. Communism has fallen. Are we within sight of the End of History? Do we in the West represent the Last Man? The best response was from T. Asquith: >-------------------- >TA(response): Not a bad review, but I have one or two quibbles. > >In Fukuyama's book, we see that the Last Men are indeed quite pathetic. What has happened to the Spirit? It seems to have vanished. Note that for >Fukuyama: > > "That is, to the extent that megalothymia (Spirit) from life and substituting it for rational consumption, we will become the last men. But > human beings will rebel at this thought. That is, they will rebel > the idea of being undifferentiated members of a universal and > homogenous state, each the same as the other no matter where on the > globe one goes." > >Sounds pretty pathetic to me. Does this mean that liberal democracy is indeed so seductive? I don't think so (but thinking of alternatives is difficult. Perhaps social democracy--not entirely unsuccessful). > >As for Marx, the use of the materialist approach for defining history is >still pretty useful, and I don't think will go away too easily. Hence, >his ideas will survive.--TA Yes, in History Books.--jeb >Lastly, I noticed a lack of a mention of Hegel or Kojeve in your article. >Much of Fukuyama is based on the Hegel-Kojeve interpretation of the >Phenomenology of Spirit/Mind. It is difficult to water down this part, and still feel that >democracy/capitalism is still in great shape, when attempts to apply Hegel >to our current system(s). (Heck, the two are not 100% compatible. Capitalism >has flourished where there is less democracy and respect for rights--e.g., >France under Louis-Napoleon, early Victorian England). > >T.Asquith > >"Quot homines, tot sententiae." > >---------------------------------218911982929956-- Hi, I didn't make too much of Hegel, and don't think the author can either. He is claiming an END for HISTORY, but the logic of dialectical change would argue for an infinite progression. These sound like they are in opposition (but maybe not). To reconcile Hegel and an endpoint, I can picture a history where major shifts occur early (hunting to agriculture) but with the passing of time the changes are less and a type of "end" is approached through an ever less significant series of changes. The "end point" as I see it is a type of capitalist democracy/welfare state with either two political parties (USA) or many parties which form two main voting block coalitions (Italy, Israel). One party/block sees itself as for "social welfare" and pushes for more government spending, and the other sees itself as for "individual liberty" and for less government spending. When the portion of GNP going to taxes gets above about 40% the voters cry "not enough incentive to work", rebel, and elect the "liberty" party/block. But when it drops below about 20% of GNP, there are cries of "neglecting the poor" and the "social welfare" group wins. This has been going on in the USA, Canada, Japan, Europe and Israel for many years. Hegel's constant change, but no real progression. Is this LAST MAN pathetic? What does it matter? Or "compared to what"? There is no judgment about whether this model is GOOD or BAD, just is it an accurate description of history? ,,,,,,, ____________________ooo__(_O O_)__ooo_________________________ (_) Jim Blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) University of Wisconsin, Madison (USA). For a good time this winter, call http://www.taponline.com/tap/travel/breaks/jbdive3.html "This message is brought to you using biodegradable binary bits and 100 % recycled bandwidth."