What do YOU think about Fukuyama's premise that History actually ended after the French Revolution?
To sum it up quickly: He argues that once the ideas of equality, liberty and democracy were born and succeeded gradually in all parts of the world, History (or "the struggle for the ideal government/society") came to an end. The developments of the first half of the 20th century (fascism/communism) were therefore merely reactionairist counter-movements that eventually (and he points out that it was only logical, as it conirmed his thesis)died.
I think that in the current world the "western" way of government is indeed the ideal one.....and also one might argue that today's fundamentalist terrorism is just another desperate attempt to fight this development back.

Am, what are your thoughts?

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

sounds like a cool theory. I've never thought of it that way before.

I think its wrong, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm just an idealist.

First, peace, equality and liberty haven't been reached everywhere. Maybe not anywhere yet.
Second, what about parts of history regarding human expansion to outer space? Or possibly contacting alien life forms? No, history is far from over.

___________________
1+1=10

no, drug_tito i think you missed the point. The Japanese dud (or at least his last name sounds japanese) argues that its an end of history not because democracy has reached all of our ideals. But that democracy is the best solution we will have now, or ever for a form of government. Its a compromise, but I believe he believes its the best compromise we can reach.

I agree with you though I don't think his theory is that good.
But as for an alternate form a government, its hard for me to see one. But this one has still not faced all its challenges, and as history tells governments change every few hundred years.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus no, drug_tito i think you missed the point. The Japanese dud (or at least his last name sounds japanese) argues that its an end of history not because democracy has reached all of our ideals. But that democracy is the best solution we will have now, or ever for a form of government. Its a compromise, but I believe he believes its the best compromise we can reach.

Exactely. It's just that all big alternatives have failed as opposed to liberal democracy which became aknowledged as the ideal form of government. So the point is not the actual existence in every part of the world, but the general consensus that this is what every country has to strive for.

As for his person: He's of Japanese origin but a professor in some US uni and also one of bush's closest advisors. Im currently reading his new book. The book about The End of History is by the way more than 10 years old. It can be seen as a reaction to the collapse of the Sowjet empire. However many many intellectuals disagreed vehemntly, one of them was even inspired to write his nowadays often cited book "the clash of civilizations", Samuel Huntington.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

The fact that liberal democracy is now a dominating political system throughout the world, and that it currently seems like a best compromise, doesn't mean that it is the end. It is not a perfect system, and as long as there isn't a perfect system, somebody is going to be unsatisfied, and there is going to be struggle for a new and different system.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The fact that liberal democracy is now a dominating political system throughout the world, and that it currently seems like a best compromise, doesn't mean that it is the end. It is not a perfect system, and as long as there isn't a perfect system, somebody is going to be unsatisfied, and there is going to be struggle for a new and different system.

But their will never be a perfect system. This is what I think he was getting to. In his opinion, I believe he thinks this is the best imperfect system we can get to.

The only test I think the current most perfect imperfect system stands, is a test if it will simply fall to the fate of facisim, or dictatorship and stive as such for a while. So far it has stood this test, but one wonders if it is a question of time or not. Obviously this Japenese guy belives it will not happen n o matter how long.

i hope history ends soon im getting tired of learning about it...

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer i hope history ends soon im getting tired of learning about it...

I just read some more about this, from a pretty good sources.

There are basically two views, Mr. Japanese (Fukyou ) who wrote his book the end of history around 1990 after the end of the cold war. And Mr. I have forgotten Name who wrote the now very popular book East v. West (1997 i think).

Mr. Japanese, after the cold war ending and the spread of democracy and capitalism, saw that sure their woudl be major events throughtout the history of world, but that conflict to find the best system had been settled. There would be no more large scale struggles, since eventually all nations on earth would embrace the American ideals of capitilism and freedom. Now I agree with this in away - I think the current US system is the best imperfect system us imperfect humans can expect to achieve. But its not the end of history for one thing:

Mr. Japanese proves his point by stating the democritization of other countries in the world mainly from Eastern Europe and Latin America. They share the same culuture and therefore transition is not a problem.
Mr. I have forgotten Name, states that Mr. Japanese has a good point, but his theory has to stand the test of culture. Their are several cultures (West, Islamic, Budhist, Konfusisim, and that Indian one). Now all the others but the West and Islam don't count since they don't preach a "universal" application. The clash therefore is between more traditional societies and the modern ones of the west.

The argument goes that altought the US system is the best economical model no doubt, it is doubtful wether this provides social atmosphere (everyone thinks US is great Satan) that is adaqeut to meet human social conditions - on the other hand the traditional economies are much more socially 'respectable'. And therefore a comprise might come in place.

Ok enough blabbering, but its just cute to see that indeed there is a struggle, the clash of cultures, altough I personally believe it is in Mr. Japanese bigger plan, just an obstalce to overcome.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I just read some more about this, from a pretty good sources. There are basically two views, Mr. Japanese (Fukyou ) who wrote his book the end of history around 1990 after the end of the cold war. And Mr. I have forgotten Name who wrote the now very popular book East v. West (1997 i think). Mr. Japanese, after the cold war ending and the spread of democracy and capitalism, saw that sure their woudl be major events throughtout the history of world, but that conflict to find the best system had been settled. There would be no more large scale struggles, since eventually all nations on earth would embrace the American ideals of capitilism and freedom. Now I agree with this in away - I think the current US system is the best imperfect system us imperfect humans can expect to achieve. But its not the end of history for one thing: Mr. Japanese proves his point by stating the democritization of other countries in the world mainly from Eastern Europe and Latin America. They share the same culuture and therefore transition is not a problem. Mr. I have forgotten Name, states that Mr. Japanese has a good point, but his theory has to stand the test of culture. Their are several cultures (West, Islamic, Budhist, Konfusisim, and that Indian one). Now all the others but the West and Islam don't count since they don't preach a "universal" application. The clash therefore is between more traditional societies and the modern ones of the west. The argument goes that altought the US system is the best economical model no doubt, it is doubtful wether this provides social atmosphere (everyone thinks US is great Satan) that is adaqeut to meet human social conditions - on the other hand the traditional economies are much more socially 'respectable'. And therefore a comprise might come in place. Ok enough blabbering, but its just cute to see that indeed there is a struggle, the clash of cultures, altough I personally believe it is in Mr. Japanese bigger plan, just an obstalce to overcome.

why do you keep referring to fukuyama as mr. japanese

___________________
*** Sig edited -> image exceeds 50k byte size restriction
http://wsm.ezsitedesigner.com/share/scrapbook/19/196003/gayslater.gif

I guess "Fukuyama" was a too hard name to remember when even HUNTINGTON (mr. you have forgotten his name) turned out to be an intellectual challenge

j/k. thanks yoepus for sharing the interest in that subject

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

If we define history as "the struggle for the ideal government/society", then the answer to the question "Have we reached the end of history?" is equivalent to "Have we reached the end of the struggle for the ideal government/society?"

There are two possible ways in which we may have reached the end of the struggle for the ideal government/society:

1. We have achieved the ideal government/society.

2. We have given up trying to achieve the ideal government/society.

Personally, I think it is preposterous to suggest that we have achieved the ideal government and/or society. All forms of Representative Democracy share severe, debilitating flaws, which could most certainly be improved upon. To name a few:

1. The average person, as much as we would like to delude ourselves to believe otherwise, is horribly underqualified to have any input - direct or indirect - into public policy. If you would like evidence of this fact, simply observe the American public's unjustifiable choice of George W. Bush as chief executive.

2. Representatives are highly vulnerable to a variety of forms of corruption, not to mention that one might expect them to seek primarily to preserve their own interests as well. What we have here in the states might rightly be called a de facto oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. Campaign finance reform would help, but not solve this problem.

3. Representatives are often highly ignorant of the technical aspects of issues they must create legislature for. So-called experts who seek to inform them are frequenly extremely biased and of little practical use. Government endorsement of censorware is a good example of this phenomenon.

4. Representatives whose careers depend on producing short-term results are encouraged by the system to sacrifice the future for the present. The national debt of the United States is a direct result of this problem.


I could go on, but for the sake of relative brevity I'll leave it at that. An analysis of our society yields similarly disappointing results:

1. A mass-media driven culture characterized by fads, trends, and mindless materialism encourages people to want things beyond their means. Credit and stupidity create tremendous debts for many of these people. Hardly an ideal characteristic for a society.

2. A lack of respect for individual differences permeates our society. A society built on cliques with little respect for outcasts discourages the diversity which results in advancement. Though we preach freedom of religion, for example, many religious groups attempt to impose their religion on others vicariously by influencing public policy.

3. Cowardice is extremely prevalent, especially in conjunction with a perverse obsession with safety, even at the cost of liberty. One need look no further than the infamous Homeland Security Act to see but one of many manifestations of this societal disease.

4. Our society embraces ignorance as if it were an admirable trait. Children who excel in intellectual pursuits are frequently ostracized, discouraging those with potential from exploiting it. Again, the President of the United States demonstrates the truth of this assertion quite nicely.


Once again, I'll cut myself off, although I could probably rant for ages about the many profound problems with our society. I cannot believe that this is the best we can ever accomplish. And even if it seemed to be the truth, it would be a foolish hypothesis, for one should never underestimate the extent of change that the future will bring.

The only alternatives, then, are that either we have given up trying to achieve the ideal government/society, or we have not reached the end of history. It is difficult to tell whether or not we are still trying to achieve the ideal government/society, since advancement in the area is characterized by quick jumps followed by long periods of relative stagnancy. But I don't think so, for as DrUg_Tit0 said, as long as the system is imperfect, there will be those who are not content, and as long as there are those who are not content, there will be those who endeavor to change the system.

No, I don't think we'll ever find a truly ideal government or society. But as far as we've come, I think we may yet have even farther to go.