Just Finished Reading: The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama (FP: 1992)

In a way this is an understandable product of rational triumphalism. After all just prior to its provocative publication the Berlin Wall had collapsed and the Soviet Union, that great generations long enemy of the West, had collapsed and was starting to break apart. Across the globe totalitarian governments of both the Left and the Right were falling almost in response and democracies were flowering in areas long considered as too barren to sustain them. It really did look like the end of history – at least to some. Of course the message was misunderstood – sometimes deliberately no doubt. By the end of ‘History’ the author was very clear that he did not mean that historical events had ceased to occur or had ceased to have significance. What he meant was that the drivers of historical progress – being a firm believer in such an idea – had achieved their end point: Liberal Democratic Capitalism. With the failure of Communism – its only real competitor left on the world stage – there were now no political or economic challengers in the way of the ultimate triumph of the West. The way the future would unfold from now on – from 1992 – would reflect the spread of democratic government, western liberalism and, naturally, capitalist enterprise. All that was ahead of us now was the details of how the triumph spread. Eventually, within a very few generations, everywhere would simply be sometimes subtle cultural variations of the same thing.

Despite disagreeing with the authors underlying theory I not only found this book full of interesting ideas and insights but also quite a few persuasive arguments. I was both surprised and impressed by the work. Although I shouldn’t have been that surprised considering the impact it had on publication. An indicator on how controversial it was is how many books and articles were written in critical response to the authors ideas (some of which will be appearing here). Yet, despite the ideas and the arguments I still do not ‘buy’ his idea that democracy and capitalism have seen off all opposition for all time. The original mistake made by the author is a significant one – that rumours of western triumph were greatly exaggerated because, oddly in a book with so much historical perspective, it was published far too close to the end of Soviet Russia to have any real perspective on the event and its aftermath as the effects rippled across the world. With now almost 30 years of hindsight available such a book as this would simply not have been written. Democracy is seen by many to be in crisis across the globe and its ultimate salvation is far from assured. Likewise with the arguable collapse of globalisation, the financial crisis of 2008 and the recent triumph of authoritarian economics in China and elsewhere the singular ‘victory’ of Capitalism is looking more like being based on hubris rather than historical fact.

I can certainly see why this book was written. It appeared to a number of people – essentially right-wing neo-liberal neo-conservative thinkers – that they had been right all along. The Left, in all its guises, had failed. The Right was indeed now proven to be right. The only thing now stopping the total triumph of their worldview was the soft intervention of elected governments in the free market which was, when left alone, perfect. In the end Democracy and Capitalism were not the best of bed partners. But people, because of deep seated ideas of self-worth, would not likely give up their small piece of power. Capitalism would, therefore, always be striving towards perfection but never reaching the theoretical pinnacle it was capable of. Coming from an obviously neo-con world I did find myself periodically either wrinkling or holding my nose as the author made ‘obvious’ comments about the failures of other systems and passed over the problems of his own ideology. But it’s good, from time to time, dipping your toe into waters you would never voluntarily swim in. If nothing else it helps to define where your acceptable boundaries are. An important book written at an important time in global political thought and worth reading for that reason alone. Recommended. (R)