Hello everynyan :3, today is a very special day because it's the day I've decided to write this post, these last few weeks I've been torturing myself reading Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man" inspired by this wholesome marsey 
made by @Most_Hated_Man_Alive.
This will be a refutation of the whole book, not point by point because that's boring, but I will try my best to explain why Fukuyama is a talentless cute twink too far up his own butt.
The book's first mistake is contradicting itself in the first few sentences, it's not akshually the end of herstory, that's just a figure of speech. According to Fukuyama, the science is settled, with the fall of the USSR, liberal democracy is the most perfect system in all of human history, nothing can compare to it. When shown that things like the Iraq War and the Chinaman protests of 89' still happen, he explaind that it is not a literal end of history, things will continue to happen, it's just that liberal democracy is the greatest system ever and I FRICKING LOVE SCIENCE! 
That is, while earlier forms of government were characterized by grave defects an irrationalities that led to their eventual
collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. This was not to say that today's
stable democracies, like the United States, France, or Switzerland,
were not without injustice or serious social problems. But these
problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty an d equality on which moder n democracy is
founded, rather than of flaws in the principles themselves. While
some present-day countries might fail to achieve stable liberal
democracy, and others might lapse back into other, mor e primitive forms of rule like theocracy or military dictatorship, the ideal
of liberal democracy could not be improved on.
When shown with the existence of systems that are neither liberal nor democratic in the modern world, he understandably says "liberal democracy le good doe". When shown the faults of liberal democracies across the world, he convincingly says "liberal democracy le good doe". When shown that the world as a whole isn't heading to a unitary world government led by liberal democracies, he succintly states "uh, the science is settled chud, trust the science." 
But in addition, human beings seek recognition of their own worth,
Yes, according to Fukuyama most of human history is just a twitter attention seeking tournament, how heckin revolutionary oh my science! 
Assuming that liberal democracy is, for the moment, safe from external enemies, could we assume that successful democratic societies could remain that way indefinitely Or is liberal democracy prey to serious internal contradictions, contradictions so serious that they will eventually undermine it as a political system? There is no doubt that contemporary democracies face any number of serious problems, from drugs, homelessness, and crime to environmental damage and the frivolity of consumerism. But these problems are not obviously insoluble on the basis of liberal principles, nor so serious that they would necessarily lead to the collapse of society as a whole, as communism collapsed in the 1980s.
In case you haven't noticed, his entire argument is "Liberal democracy is the main characterino so there's no way it could fall, liberal democracy will live on forrevaaaaar 
"
He then tries to use the words of this guy called Hegel (the character from Fallout New Vegas) to argue why human history is just attention seekers and therefore liberal democracy le good. To my knowledge Hegels is @COMMUNISTHOMOGROYPER 's grandpa or something so trying to explain why liberal democracy le good with his words is like trying to explain why zionism is le good using Mein Kampf, total nonsense.
To summarize, liberal democracy le good, the science is settled, liberal democracy will thriumph over nationalism fascism communism indians etc. Liberal democracy will live on forever and nothing is better so stop trying to better the system the new world order is here. You cannot change anything it's perfect as it is. Any argument saying it's not perfect or that it has its faults is wrong because it just is, chud. DO NOT QUESTION THE NEW WORLD ORDER DO NOT QUESTION THE NEW WORLD ORDER DO NOT QUESTION THE NEW WORLD ORDER DO NOT QUESTION THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Fukuyama is a literal 
in writer form, nuff' said.
The rest of the book summarized: 
That is my whole review, @neoconshill please pin this post in /h/lit I put a lot of effort into it.
@COMMUNISTHOMOGROYPER please do the needful and post DNA
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This but unironically and is a good thing
Seriously though, Fukuyama kind of retracted himself from his original thesis in recent years.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/francis-fukuyama-postpones-the-end-of-history
Sal, eu te recomendo também ler Origins of Political Order. Também escrito por esse japa, é mais sobre história em geral e menos político no sentido atual
!neolibs what do you guys think?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Honestamente acho que muitas coisas que esse cara diz não estão erradas, pelo menos em uma certa maneira. Mas Fukuyama tem uma visão muito simplista do mundo e a politica, e a tese é muito pretensiosa com isso de "O meu sistema é perfeito e nada pode se comparar, portanto é o fim do mundo" Mas vou ler isse livro, obrigado pela recomendação.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Eu acho que o livro encaixa no contexto do fim da Guerra Fria, capturou o “Zeitgeist” daquele então. Mas sim, qualquer livro que oferece uma visão simplista demais vai estar errado em vários aspectos, em geral isso e certo pra qualquer livro tentando adivinhar o futuro. Por isso eu acho que ele é melhor fazendo análise histórico do que suas previsões que envelheceram como leite.
A propósito, como é que se faz pin só no /h/lit? Eu só vi pra fazer o pin em geral, seria esse?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Pergunte a carp, eu não sei.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
To be fair, 95% of people who read this book do the same, because the first Part of the book is boring, poorly-aged, arrogant, and 30 IQ points lower than the rest of the book.
The last Part of the book is the most important, relevant, and interesting. It is where Fukuyama writes that liberalism is intrisincally flawed and the end of history will be depressing, meaningless, and unfulfilling.
To quote his essay:
Fukuyama predicts the rise of a zealous Left who will take the struggle for equality to crazier and crazier conclusions. He also predicts the rise of populist Right who rejects cold liberal consumerism in favor of nationalism, war, and strength. He wonders if the ambitious, glory-seeking leaders among us will accept the egalitarianism of liberal democracy, or if they might try to overthrow it. As an example of such a person, he used the outdated 90s reference of real estate tycoon Donald Trump.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Watch this go nowhere in 2 weeks
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
É profético, basicamente o japa disse que “consoooooom” é o futuro
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ele previu aos zoomers com internet basicamente, mas ele não previu todos os horrores que isso traria.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Basically the point of “just consoom” we’re currently reaching. My interpretation was that The End of History he meant was that Liberal Democracy is like the best we can realistically achieve as the alternatives are just terrible, not that there wouldn’t be any dictatorship or populist regimes anymore, but rather that what they offered was shit compared with liberal democracy. Even our current culture wars are not the same as say the French or Russian Revolutions, magacel boomers are not going to overthrow the US government anymore than crazy progs are not going to turn the US into a socialist commune, today is mostly online bitching, not real take the streets change. Also in his portuguese comment Sal said he mostly agreed with the book, but thought Fukuyama was kind of arrogant and simplistic with his claims.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He is in the first Part, but by the last Part he's so pessimistic about the end of history you wonder if he's secretly rooting against it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Liberal Autocracy>Liberal Democracy>Illiberal Democracy>Illiberal Autocracy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah, people have had this boring Salon dot com response to the book since it came it. They never grapple with any of the overarching themes or details and just go "Yeah, but look at this one thing! It's wrong." It makes me think of all of the people who collapse-cried in response to Stephen Pinker's Better Angels and Enlightenment Now.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context