What does /lit/ think of The End of History and the Last Man?

Probably the most hilariously wrong work I've ever read, considering the amount of autism that went into it.

>>9253281
Know of his claims but haven't read "The End of History and the Last Man."

Most of his argument seems to rest on the premise that liberal democracy is better for "most people" (and thus "all people") than any other sort of extant state. By his definitions, it's hard to argue against this.

Does he have any actual criticisms of communism other than the stock "muh stalin" or "it hasn't been tried"?

>>9253315
It's primarily an economic and moral criticism - one he believes that Communism is destined to fail economically both to maximise the wealth of its citizens and as an overall system (tending towards collapse). And the general criticism that he believes it errs towards totalitarianism and restriction of freedom.

>>9253281
Liberal piece of crap.

>>9253281
He's admitted he was wrong about The End of History, and rightly so.

However, his more recent The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay are fucking god-tier.

>>9253281
History just started again desu

>>9253337
>Communism is destined to fail to maximize the wealth of its citizens
That's arguable. Most communists would say that even after the capitalist collapse, if there is a long, worldwide "poverty," that's better than any amount of people living in abject penury (e.g. Kolkatta slum orphans picking through garbage heaps to survive). Also, there aren't "citizens" in a communist society. But I am not a communist, nor a capitalist, I just like playing advocatus diaboli

>And the general criticism that he believes it errs towards totalitarianism and restriction of freedom.
So, "muh stalin" et al., basically.

>>9253373
with that said, liberal democracies mostly undermined themselves by their own stupidity - misguided immigration policy, Middle Eastern wars, failure to provide jobs for the poorly-educated, etc.

>>9253379
What will replace them?

>>9253409
I couldn't tell you in the EU, but in the US I think we'll have more city-state-esque areas that are given more freedom to set their own policy, and maybe a US breakup or greater autonomy given to states. The urban areas (mostly liberal) and rural areas (mostly reactionary) find each other increasingly intolerable. Polarization is increasing, since it's so easy to move to a place where everyone agrees with you. Capital tends to follow competence, so most economic growth is taking place in America's big cities. I think America's big cities produce as much GDP as the rest of America combined, and they are also creating a lot more jobs and more startups.

This, combined with immigration policies, obviously leads to even more rural resentment, but there really isn't much of a future for them when you consider how much automation we'll have in the near future - there are no jobs for stupid people. So I would expect rural areas to continue to waste away, and cities to continue to pull ahead.

Maybe we'll get actually-existing archeofuturism.

>>9253441
In your dreams Land

>>9253315
His criticisms of communism aren't so much arguments against Marxist theory as they are empirical observations of what Zizek has called Really Existing Communism/ Socialism. Fukuyama is very Hegelian (in this book at least), albeit thru the lens of Kojeve, whose lectures heavily influenced Lacan and others. Fukuyama believes that liberal democracy presents the best system to balance the tension between liberty, as some will desire to be recognized as better than others through various means (wealth, fame, etc), and equality. He notes that regimes that have attempted to implement Marxist theory, principally Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, have consistently tended towards tyranny in the name of producing equality, while acknowledging that Marxist theory says there will be no contradiction between freedom and equality, such that the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberalization of China economically does not "prove" Marxist thought to be wrong. But since, for now, capitalist democracies seem to be winning out, particularly with people who experienced Really Existing Communism, Fukuyama concludes that (and again, this is "for now") liberal democracy is the best path going forward absent some other developmentstuff.

The last third or so of the book is devoted to tackling Nietzsche's last man problem, as Fukuyama acknowledges that liberal democracy seems to inculcate comfort, anomie, and a lack of willpower and ambition in people. Fukuyama admits that liberalism itself doesn't solve this issue, just that, for now, liberal democracy seems like the best system, as it makes space for ambitious people to pursue their desire for recognition as "better" than others without allowing them to tyrannize and harshly dominate others, something that Really Existing Communism hasn't accomplished.

My major criticism, obviously an ex post facto empirical observation, of the book is that Fukuyama was too wedded to the idea (common at the time) that capitalism and liberal democracy went hand-in-hand, such that capitalism would naturally bring democracy. If anything, China, Russia, and even the EU to a certain extent have shown that capitalism doesn't need democracy or certain liberal freedoms, and may actually function better without them.

>>9253452
I just want to emphasize that Fukuyama no longer necessarily believes in what he wrote in that book.

I don't actually know the extent to which he rejects that book, but I know that he at least rejects the idea that liberal democracy is the end of history.

>>9253447
I don't really know much about him except that he wants to turn everything into a Singapore so as to create a superintelligence as soon as possible. Right?

Anyway, as far as I can tell, the neoreactionaries seem to think that if we just get rid of democracy, purge the darkies and ban them from immigrating, and return to the gold standard and maybe bring back Christianity, we will Save Civilization (tm). So somehow, neoliberals aren't capitalist enough.

>neolib: Let's bring in some immigrants to reduce my labor costs.
>reactionary: Muh Xicans! You're destroying White Civilization's gene pool!
>neolib: lel, who cares about dumb whites? They are racist, religious fanatic degenerates anyway.
>neolib: aren't you supposed to be a social darwinist?

Do you really disagree that this is kind of happening already though?

>>9253441
> Capital tends to follow competence, so most economic growth is taking place in America's big cities. I think America's big cities produce as much GDP as the rest of America combined, and they are also creating a lot more jobs and more startups.

>This, combined with immigration policies, obviously leads to even more rural resentment, but there really isn't much of a future for them when you consider how much automation we'll have in the near future - there are no jobs for stupid people. So I would expect rural areas to continue to waste away, and cities to continue to pull ahead.

I have to disagree with this, on the basis that, at some point, big companies will choose to leave major cities for cheaper areas, and then they can drag their employees along with them. There are a ton of incentives for SV companies to stay there right now, but what if the business environment changes, or really estate prices become so intolerable for their employees, that they leave for a more rural area and give their employees enough incentive to come along? Google or Apple could easily partner with private developers and local officials to turn a medium-size town into a hipster dream of cafés, bars, boutique stores, and restaurants in a couple months time.

I only known him because Zizek keeps mentioning his work

>>9253487
>the neoreactionaries seem to think that if we just get rid of democracy, purge the darkies and ban them from immigrating, and return to the gold standard and maybe bring back Christianity, we will Save Civilization (tm)
Does your idea of NRx come from The Atlantic and/or Salon.com?

>>9253500
Yeah, but why spend all that money when you can just buy politicians to write favorable policies for you? Plus, you'd have to get a bunch of people to move to rural America, which sucks.

>>9253510
I have little knowledge about what it actually entails beyond No Democracy, liking of HBD, and commercializing government.

>>9253471
You're right, and I wasn't meaning to imply that. On my reading, it's strange that Fukuyama repudiated his "conclusion", as he didn't really conclude much about the long-term viability of liberal democracy; the last few chapters are markedly ambivalent given the "last man" issue that he attempts to grapple with. Maybe his original essay, which he wrote a year or two before the book, was more conclusive with the claim that "this is the end of history", but the book certainly expresses some doubts.