I have to admit I didn't read this until he literally blurbed Sam's and my book, and then like you I was really struck by how I had misunderstood. So your delay is now only the second most embarrassing detailed here.
I’ve been fighting this battle on behalf of Fukuyama for years. It is a profound book, and a book that few have actually read. It is almost always caricatured and dismissed as if the part of its title “The End of History” sums up the book as saying history has somehow now ended. It’s a shame that it has mostly survived in caricature with so few actual readers.
Excellent review of one of the most important books on political philosophy in our lifetime. It is also by far the most misunderstood, if that is actually the right word for criticising a book that one has never read. The strength of Fukuyama’s argument is that it shows how we got here and explores the unresolvable tension between our desire for both equality and inequality in a very convincing way. As you note, the book was absolutely visionary and explains a lot about the present political moment.
Thanks for this essay. I agree that Fukuyama's book has been unfairly characterized, and that he deserves a fair hearing. This was very helpful.
To be fair, giving it the title "The End of History" is basically academic clickbait, and if he had called it something like "The Equilibrium State of Democracy and Capitalism" the book might not have received so much attention. Live by the clickbait, die by the strawman.
I don’t think it was intended that way, the idea was more to contrast Hegel and Nietzsche in a very Hegelian way and to raise the question of the synthesis. In a sense the title is a perfect summary of the book, that is if you make the effort to understand it.
I read it when it came out. I read it again a few years ago. I simply don't see much evidence that the combination of liberal democracy and capitalism is either preferred or some sort of default. Written at a time when this combination was arguably at its apex, it's been in retreat ever since. The majority of people seem to prefer that government takes care of them rather than provide a system where they can achieve personal recognition and economic freedom.
So yeah, history didn't end, but I find his argument to be idealistic and incongruent with human nature.
People flee non-liberal democratic, non-capitalist societies all the time, at considerable risk, in search of a better life in Europe or the US. Exactly nobody escapes liberal democracies to live in China, Russia or Iran. That is more than enough evidence of what system people really prefer, as far as I am concerned. Apparently human nature is even less congruent with dictatorship and the economic cronyism it invariably creates than with liberal democracy and capitalism.
But also, those nations have become steadily less democratic and capitalist in the intervening years, and there are pretty good arguments that the economic opportunities people are coming for include government benefits, ie a government that takes care of people and keeps them safe. The trends run counter to the argument.
Reality does not bear your thesis out. People who emigrate to the US are not looking for benefits. Even in Europe there is a significant contraction on that point. And finally, those adjustment do not affect the comparison overall.
It seems like we've housed, fed, clothed and provided for recently immigrants in the US pretty nicely, and certainly there is a very nice benefits package in most EU countries. There's also a reduced tendency vis a vis prior immigration waves to assimilate. So is the democracy part, giving recognition to people, driving this immigration wave, or rather the economic opportunities? I don't see democracy as the driver.
I have to admit I didn't read this until he literally blurbed Sam's and my book, and then like you I was really struck by how I had misunderstood. So your delay is now only the second most embarrassing detailed here.
I’ve been fighting this battle on behalf of Fukuyama for years. It is a profound book, and a book that few have actually read. It is almost always caricatured and dismissed as if the part of its title “The End of History” sums up the book as saying history has somehow now ended. It’s a shame that it has mostly survived in caricature with so few actual readers.
Excellent review of one of the most important books on political philosophy in our lifetime. It is also by far the most misunderstood, if that is actually the right word for criticising a book that one has never read. The strength of Fukuyama’s argument is that it shows how we got here and explores the unresolvable tension between our desire for both equality and inequality in a very convincing way. As you note, the book was absolutely visionary and explains a lot about the present political moment.
Thanks for this essay. I agree that Fukuyama's book has been unfairly characterized, and that he deserves a fair hearing. This was very helpful.
To be fair, giving it the title "The End of History" is basically academic clickbait, and if he had called it something like "The Equilibrium State of Democracy and Capitalism" the book might not have received so much attention. Live by the clickbait, die by the strawman.
I don’t think it was intended that way, the idea was more to contrast Hegel and Nietzsche in a very Hegelian way and to raise the question of the synthesis. In a sense the title is a perfect summary of the book, that is if you make the effort to understand it.
Great stuff Tom
I read it when it came out. I read it again a few years ago. I simply don't see much evidence that the combination of liberal democracy and capitalism is either preferred or some sort of default. Written at a time when this combination was arguably at its apex, it's been in retreat ever since. The majority of people seem to prefer that government takes care of them rather than provide a system where they can achieve personal recognition and economic freedom.
So yeah, history didn't end, but I find his argument to be idealistic and incongruent with human nature.
People flee non-liberal democratic, non-capitalist societies all the time, at considerable risk, in search of a better life in Europe or the US. Exactly nobody escapes liberal democracies to live in China, Russia or Iran. That is more than enough evidence of what system people really prefer, as far as I am concerned. Apparently human nature is even less congruent with dictatorship and the economic cronyism it invariably creates than with liberal democracy and capitalism.
But also, those nations have become steadily less democratic and capitalist in the intervening years, and there are pretty good arguments that the economic opportunities people are coming for include government benefits, ie a government that takes care of people and keeps them safe. The trends run counter to the argument.
Reality does not bear your thesis out. People who emigrate to the US are not looking for benefits. Even in Europe there is a significant contraction on that point. And finally, those adjustment do not affect the comparison overall.
It seems like we've housed, fed, clothed and provided for recently immigrants in the US pretty nicely, and certainly there is a very nice benefits package in most EU countries. There's also a reduced tendency vis a vis prior immigration waves to assimilate. So is the democracy part, giving recognition to people, driving this immigration wave, or rather the economic opportunities? I don't see democracy as the driver.