The End of History and the Last Man - Literature review Example

The End of History and the Last Man History “The End of History and the Last Man” originated from the need for legitimacy on issues related to liberal democracy that was written as a response (Fukuyama xi). Its origin was in the works of Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History” (Fukuyama xi). In fact, after the release of the book, it sparked controversy between the communists and non-communists. It is significant that some systems of government, communism being one of them did not allow capitalism and liberal democracy in their administrations, which were gaining momentum during this time (Fukuyama xi). Historically, the article ignored most of the events, which were significant and philosophical in terms of orientation. In simple terms, the author did not underscore the implication of communism as a way of governance. Pessimism After analyzing the content of the book, it seemed the pessimist would take the author’s opinion as denouncing the challenges, which could face liberal democracy at this period (Fukuyama 3). Knowing that communism was the main system of government, it became obvious that the people were pessimistic about the chances of capitalism and liberal democracy system to take center stage in the political administration in the region. When the author referred to the market economy and liberal democracy as the successful ways of achieving happiness, which include adequate food, sex, a sense of reasoning, and recognition, he seemed to forget that even during communism, such happiness existed (Fukuyama 5). Here, the author is depicted as being pessimistic about the ability of communism to ensure that the subjects lived happily. Worldwide Liberal Revolution Many countries had started agitating for liberal democracy in governance prior to its enactment (Fukuyama 9). In fact, the author misconceived the reality that even before the end of the powerful Soviet Union; the people had realized that communism had failed to enhance development in the region. Therefore, this failure made the people to embrace capitalism and liberal democracy, which many people acknowledged for promoting freedom and security (Fukuyama 9). As a result, the author claimed that this was the end of history, but forgot to realize that the same communist leadership was charged with implementing the liberal democracy. This could have far reaching implication on their credibility to exercise liberal democracy as expected. It is surprising that Fukuyama acknowledged Hegel and Marx’s view of the world as evolving opposites. However, Fukuyama suggested that the success of liberal democracy was a clear manifestation that the history had ended (Fukuyama 10). On the other hand Marx was categorical and anticipated that the collapse of communism could make the state fade away. In this regard, the succession of communism could be viewed as a revolution that had consequences, either to the advantage or disadvantage of the state (Fukuyama 10). Therefore, whether the West emerged victorious or failed to promote liberal democracy did not matter to the authors, provided that the people were able to achieve full happiness. The Problem the Author(s) are Addressing The authors addressed various problems, which they had noticed in the communism regime. For example, the risk of persistent violent conflict on issues related to resource allocation and utilization because in communism, the compressive ownership lacks practical meaning (Fukuyama 11). However, they failed to recognize that even after the end of communism, the people remain and various conflicts of interest were imminent. Perhaps, it is the persistency of the conflicts during communism that led to the cold war. Besides, when the cold war ended during the onset of liberal democracy, it marked the beginning of a better future for the people. The authors also addressed the issue of whether it was possible and sensible to hypothesize coherent and ideological governance in the absence of communism (Fukuyama 11). In reality, a careful analysis of the situation depicts that communism was the only way for the country to achieve coherency. Therefore, the author did not believe on another directional history capable of promoting liberal democracy to the majority (Fukuyama 12). In this view, it seemed that communism had lost its meaning and relevance in the country as it could not propel the practicing nation to economic and political advancement. The authors seemed to have a mixed perception about the conceptual framework that the government perceives as the contingents and essentials of communism history. The authors also addressed the presumptive end of communism, which they termed as last man (Fukuyama 12). This was attributed to the success of Western political and economic liberalism thus prompted other countries to emulate the systems of government. The end of communism resulted from the antagonism between the West’s capitalism and East’s socialism. The Position against which the Author(s) is/are Arguing For Fukuyama, his argument was pegged on the belief that the ideological evolution of humanity ended with the death of communism (Fukuyama 41). He was categorical that the proliferation of liberal democracy in the East contributed to the termination of communism. The author regarded this as the last administrative structure of man’s government, meaning that the people had embraced the new systems (Fukuyama 44). In this assessment, the author is perceived to be seeking to establish an affirmative regulatory effect, possibly from the current natural science, activities carried out in the society that were either cumulative or directional in consensus. Indeed, the position was integral in determining the impacts of liberal democracy compared to communism. In another point of view, the author considered the historical aspects and processes of communism. However, this barred the people from their quest for recognition as Hegel postulated in his analysis of this type of governance (Fukuyama 47). This position was in the context of reinterpret culture, labor relations, religion, ethical codes, nationalism, allied phenomena, and war, which had characterized the past regime. Hegel, on his side argued from the point that the people desire to be acknowledged and the future was to obey and be in this nature to justify the end of communism (Fukuyama 48). It might be difficult for the conservatives to imagine being under liberal democracy because they would be ripped off most of their freedom. The author had to be convinced that the best mode of governance is that, which gives the people the freedom of expression and a reasonable level of recognition in the society (Fukuyama 51). He also accepted that the country can be able to achieve significant development when the economic, social and political activities are conducted in a liberal and competitive manner. Hegel was also not justified to argue from the belief that each person deserved civil comforts regarding self-preservation as those are some of the preserves enjoyed by the class, under communism and liberal democracy (Fukuyama 52). Therefore, the authors were interested in eliminating future ideological violence through agitating for the liberal democracy, other than communism and absolutism. The Author(s) Solution to the Problem In solving the problem, Fukuyama was optimistic that the ultimate way to make sure that the people achieved happiness was through formulating and adopting transcendent changes (Fukuyama 52). Notably, the change in leadership was better than being elected to a particular political office, or accumulating more money for oneself. He made his views a reality through writing the book, The End of History and the Last Man in a proactive manner to justify the need for liberal democracy as opposed to communism (Fukuyama 53). He also indicated that well-designed governance structures could make the country and its population achieves the highest level of development and prosperity, thus able to avoid future conflict. Hegel proposed that the problem could be solved when unnecessary dangers, competition and risks are eliminated (Fukuyama 53). The aspects had to be replaced by a more liberal and healthy competition, where the people are significantly involved. Such are the aspects of the state of the art liberal democracy. In reality, this is a sure way of making gains on the investment, which is an integral component of liberal democracy. Conclusion In summary, it is indicated that The End of History and the Last Man neutralized the controversial stand that the first publication, “The End of History” was written. The authors seemed to have realized that communism was not the best administrative system and could not lead the county to advanced development. Therefore, they inclined their opinion towards adopting the Western liberalism as the practical way of achieving happiness for the majority. Work Cited Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1993. Print. Read More