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.
OK, what do you believe is the alternative to liberal democracy? Isn't that the point of the book? That the only competitors of liberal democracy since the fall of the soviet union are gangster states who have no appeal outside of their own borders and marginal crackpots with no chance of winning.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Liberal dictatorship r-slur. Why do you think the elites love shoving the gock down everyone's throat.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Starship troopers or dark elf yarv?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Starship troopers book was based
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So the problem is selfish elites, the solution is a period of arduous service in the military or terraforming remote moons in order to vote, hold public office, or teach moral philosophy?
I guess the problems with using this to contra fukuyama is that a liberal republic would not be that different from liberal democracy and that few people actually advocate for this.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If we are going to serious post, I believe Fukuyama was right about liberal democracy being the best way of government, or at least the lesser evil according to other people. It ain’t perfect, far from it, but the alternatives suck bad, I don’t know how one can seriously look at Putin’s Russia or China and say: “that’s so much better than democracy, those dictators actually care and defend our values 😍”
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The core argument is that liberal democracy on average works better than its alternatives on the political level because peoples "animal spirits"(neuroticisms, entitlements, status seeking) can be more easily directed towards harmless things in the private sector or democratic politics as opposed to overthrowing the government or grinding against ideological mandates from the state.
The starship troopers selfish elite theory is inherently platonian. Plato advocated class stratification where roles were more calcified and the elites job was millitary service and deviations of that would be suppressed. The problem being that peoples wills across all classes will chafe or rabidly defend class restrictions that prevent them from making money, deprive them of time, opportunities and political representation without a state of potential war. It would be like the jainissary corp all over again. Political will instead of being directed towards low stakes stuff like blacktranslivesmatters becomes directed at maintaining or tearing down class systems. Its fine if your society recognizes the need for a renewable crop of self funded soldiers but that doesn't mean their interests are aligned with that of the state and its other constituints no matter how hard or long the center tries to impose ideological purity.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context