3: Inherent fallacies in the thesis
A great portion of people would see communism as the ultimate form of government [ 18 ]. In essence it is the fairest system of government, where each man is truly equal, no discrimination in terms of sex or race and no class system. Thus to dismiss it as the final port of call for ideological evolution seems almost impossible. Jacques Derrida in ‘Spectres of Marx’ noted that Fukuyama does not allow for the huge amount of civic unrest and misery still apparent in this western liberalism [ 19 ]. Though it may simply be inferred that Fukuyama means that due to human nature, western liberal democracy is the least imperfect option. Similarly, a great number of people would find it wrong of Fukuyama to suppose that this form of government is the final solution when today in countries operating as western liberal democracies there are still fundamental failings which produce poverty, high crime rates and rioting [ 20 ]. Thus critics such as Allan Bloom conceded that whilst western liberalism appeared to have won-out, it was unsatisfactory [ 21 ]. Fukuyama’s own stance on the unsatisfactory nature of the result is to blame the failings upon an incomplete realization of liberalism, which, in turn, re-ignite the question of communism, and why Fukuyama can dismiss it as a whole, without seeing that it was a victim of its own implementation. Obviously, in presenting such a controversial thesis, Fukuyama did not take into account and variety of possible global changes, but his argument lies on the observations of man in its current state and the evolution of what has governed him. In the subsequent novel ‘The End of History and the Last Man’, Fukuyama clearly states ‘We cannot picture to ourselves a world that is essentially different from the present one, and at the same time better’[ 22 ]. Indeed Fukuyama also concedes that ‘there can be no end of history without an end of modern natural science and technology’ [ 23 ]. Events within the last twenty-five years have exposed frailties with Fukuyama’s thesis, though not to the point of abandonment. However, hypotheticals posed by such events such as the rise of ISIS do help to undermine ‘The End of History?’ further still. Ultimately the argument for and against it is a theoretical and philosophical one. Whilst there is a valid realm of thought that the ‘supreme’ form of government would be a perfectly functioning communist society, it is impossible to picture one. Fukuyama alludes to this with his quotation ‘We cannot picture to ourselves a world that is essentially different, and at the same time better’, because in this he includes picturing a world without the very basic evils inherent in human nature that render any pure form of government impossible. Thus it appears that western liberalism remains the best alternative and this realization will eventually become known and acted upon by enough peoples to prove Fukuyama in essence correct. 4: Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Books
Derrida, Jacques Spectres of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International. 2006 Fukuyama, Francis The End of History and the Last Man . Free Press: Simon & Schuster 2006 Fukuyama, Francis Our Posthuman Future. Picador 2002 Huntington, Samuel P The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster 1996
Articles/Essays
Bloom, Allan Responses to Fukuyama The National Interest, Summer 1989 Doyle, Michael W Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs Wiley, Autumn 1983 Fukuyama, Francis The End of History The National Interest, Summer 1989
18 http://www.debate.org/opinions/communism-and-socialism-in-theory-are-ideal-forms-of-government 19 Derrida (1993) Spectres of Marx 20 http://www.povertyusa.org/ 21 Bloom, Allan Responses to Fukuyama The National Interest, Summer 1989 22 Fukuyama (1992) The End of History and the Last Man 23 Fukuyama (2002) Our Posthuman Future
122
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker