Wikipedia editor’s personal feelings about a topic. The End of History and the last american man pdf Last Man. 1989 essay “The End of History?
History should be viewed as an evolutionary process. Events still occur at the end of history. Pessimism about humanity’s future is warranted because of humanity’s inability to control technology. The end of history means liberal democracy is the final form of government for all nations. There can be no progression from liberal democracy to an alternative system. Fukuyama’s work is to confuse “history” with “events”.
Fukuyama presents “American-style” democracy as the only “correct” political system and argues that all countries must inevitably follow this particular system of government. However, many Fukuyama scholars claim this is a misreading of his work. American model of social or political organization. Part of the difficulty in assessing the theory is that democracy as a widespread global phenomenon emerged only very recently in human history, which makes generalizing about it difficult.
Other major empirical evidence includes the elimination of interstate warfare in South America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe among countries that moved from military dictatorships to liberal democracies. Some have argued against the book due to an ideological disagreement with the concept of liberal democracy. US society in the 1950s as the “realization of communism”. According to Derrida, Fukuyama—and the quick celebrity of his book—is but one symptom of the anxiety to ensure the “death of Marx”. It is consonant with the current discourse of the Pope on the European community: destined to become a Christian State or Super-State, this community would still belong therefore to some Holy Alliance.
He claims that the book uses a “sleight-of-hand trick” of making use of empirical data whenever it seems to suit its message, while appealing to an ideal whenever the empirical data contradicts it. Derrida points out that Fukuyama himself sees the real United States and European Union as imperfect compared to the “ideals” of liberal democracy and the free market. Even the author understands that such ideals are not demonstrated by empirical evidence or ever could be demonstrated empirically. And yet Fukuyama still uses a movement toward empirical observations, which he himself grants are imperfect and incomplete, to validate an idea that is purely idealistic and transcendent of any empirical reality or possibility.