The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama

[rousseau]

Years and years ago I threw a question in a political thread at a different forum, asking for some suggestions on readings in international politics. One of the brightest minds of the forum pointed me toward this book. At the time I read a few synopses and got the basic gist, but today when I was down-town book searching I ran into a copy and didn't hesitate to buy it. The core premise of the book is the idea that liberal democracy is the last phase of mankind's ideological evolution.

While I was down town this afternoon I stopped at a tea shop and read the introduction of the book to get a better feel for some of his ideas, and in his ideas he posits that mankind is driven by three forces: desire, reason, and recognition, recognition being the main one that causes a distinction between us and other animals (I think you could drive that idea deeper, but that's another thread). Fukuyama argues that the desire for recognition has caused the formation of many democracies that uphold basic human rights and dignity, among other things, basically societies that proclaim all of its citizens as equals under the law, at least on paper.

Anyway, I hear it's a revolutionary political work, and the book itself is quite a fantastic read. I definitely suggest picking it up.

 

[dystopian]

Years and years ago I threw a question in a political thread at a different forum, asking for some suggestions on readings in international politics. One of the brightest minds of the forum pointed me toward this book. At the time I read a few synopses and got the basic gist, but today when I was down-town book searching I ran into a copy and didn't hesitate to buy it. The core premise of the book is the idea that liberal democracy is the last phase of mankind's ideological evolution.

It's a core premise that is, however, utterly wrong. The notion that we are at the end of an ideological or political evolution is a widespread enough belief throughout all of history that it even has an official name in psychology circles. You'll like this:

The end of history illusion.

This illusion even persists on the personal level. There was a study published last year that showed that people of all age groups, even those who claim to have changed a lot in the past, are incapable of seriously considering their potential for personal change in the future. People believe that the person they are today, is the person they will always be. They are pretty much always *wrong* about this belief, however. People have been similarly incapable of imagining the ways in which future societies might invent new political systems. People in every age have said that 'surely our current form of government/society/technology is the final line, no further improvements needed!'

The argument that our modern liberal form of democracy is the best and last phase of ideological evolution is patently absurd; it is simply the most recent such evolution, and (arguably) the best functioning (for now); but there are undoubtedly new evolutionary steps waiting for us in the future. Futurists and sci-fi authors have imagined many different forms of government and societal organization that are vastly different from liberal democracy, but surely seem superior in many; even all; ways. The same applies to capitalism.

Both capitalism and modern democracy are just stepping stones to a greater future. In fact, we have already seen some of these developments taking place in ways that Fukuyama couldn't imagine back in the early nineties; progressive and popular movements are centering around things like direct e-democracy, leaderless adhocratic organization and free association. Liberal democracy is okay for now, but its eventual demise is inevitable.

 

[rousseau]

Yea I think you make a valid point. Given the possibility that human-kind has, at the very least, thousands of years before extinction significant change is inevitable.

On the other hand if we take liberal democracy as strictly defined by what I stole from Wikipedia:

Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons.

Then I can't foresee any form of government that doesn't include most of that definition in its tenets, especially protecting and uplifting the individual. I think the idea is that this fundamental model can be improved upon and changed, but some of the strict principles may always be a part of future models. Anything else separate from it would likely be a regression.

One thing that's important to keep in mind is that mankind isn't rational, so although I won't rule out the possibility, some super-advanced, perfect model is highly unlikely. I think even enlightenment has its limits. But then.. maybe I'm just succumbing to The end of history illusion .

 

[dystopian]

It should also be noted that Fukuyama overly romanticizes capitalism and modern democracy (not surprisingly, he was key in the formation and development of the neocon movement, although to be fair he's not affiliated with them today). Since he wrote the book, he's come back on his more utopian 90's misconceptions too, though he still maintains an ideologically driven belief in the supremacy of democracy and capitalism that is not really based on reason. I find this particularly evident in the way he calls transhumanism (specifically the artificial control of our evolution) the most dangerous idea in existence, purely because he thinks it may undermine liberal democracy by altering our fundamental nature (away from what he falsely believes is our natural inclination towards democracy). He doesn't really consider the ways in which it could lead to a vast improvement over his own idealogy. When one opposes something based purely on the remote possibility that it *might* undermine one's pet ideology, one's own unreasonable biases are revealed.

 

[dystopian]

Then I can't foresee any form of government that doesn't include most of that definition in its tenets, especially protecting and uplifting the individual. I think the idea is that this fundamental model can be improved upon and changed, but some of the strict principles may always be a part of future models. Anything else separate from it would likely be a regression.

No, see, here's where you fall into the end of history illusion yourself. *You* can't 'foresee' any form of government that is both better and fundamentally different; but so what? Before liberal democracy existed, very few people could imagine it yet here we are. Let's take a look at some of these traits:

• Competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties? Superfluous in a direct e-democracy. Why, for example, do we need elections at all when you could have a system where every citizen can at all times vote on any proposed measure via referendum?
• Separation of powers into different branches of government? Superfluous in any form of functional anarchy; and while anarchy may not be tenable on the large scale *today*, technological advances could (and are) changing that. Such separation is similarly superfluous in an adhocracy or direct e-democracy. Powers in our governments are separated to prevent an unbalanced distribution of governmental power which can lead to abuse and corruption, one group proposes the laws, another tests them, and yet another enforces them. This is necessary in our kind of government, but in other systems of government they might not be needed since the balance of power maintains itself in other ways.
• Protection of human rights, civili liberties, political freedoms? A nice thought, but once again superfluous in many forms of government. We have the need to guarantee these things in liberal democracy precisely *because* liberal democracy doesn't guarantee these things on its own. Guaranteeing everybody's political freedom isn't necessary, for example, in a form of government where everyone can vote on every proposed measure at all times; it's inherent in the system.

One thing that's important to keep in mind is that mankind isn't rational, so although I won't rule out the possibility, some super-advanced, perfect model is highly unlikely.

It's more likely than you may think. We are on the brink of developing true AI; if such a thing is possible, it won't happen a thousand years from now, it will happen within the next 50 years or less. If it does, you might imagine a society governed by an objective and perfect AI, one lacking human weakness yet bound by the moral code we give it to guarantee the maximum amount of happiness. Such an AI driven society could develop into a post-scarcity society; one with ultimate freedom for all citizens yet without anything approaching liberal democracy.

Even if we don't develop AI, we could alter our own evolution and *become* more rational as a species. We could direct our evolution precisely along those paths that make liberal democracy superfluous. Think about it, why do we have liberal democracy to begin with? Because we don't play well with others without a system that guides us toward that behavior. If our innate nature is changed to be more cooperative, for example, then we have no need for some official system of democratic government since we'd already gravitate towards a consensus driven cooperative society.

And of course, even barring all that, we *have* more rational as a society over time. Why could this trend not continue? It will never be perfect without artificial intervention, but there's a hell of a lot of ground we can still cover between our current imperfect society and that unattainable utopian one. Not if we fool ourselves into thinking our current systems can not or should never be replaced, however.

 

[rousseau]

No, see, here's where you fall into the end of history illusion yourself. *You* can't 'foresee' any form of government that is both better and fundamentally different; but so what? Before liberal democracy existed, very few people could imagine it yet here we are. Let's take a look at some of these traits:

• Competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties? Superfluous in a direct e-democracy. Why, for example, do we need elections at all when you could have a system where every citizen can at all times vote on any proposed measure via referendum?
• Separation of powers into different branches of government? Superfluous in any form of functional anarchy; and while anarchy may not be tenable on the large scale *today*, technological advances could (and are) changing that. Such separation is similarly superfluous in an adhocracy or direct e-democracy. Powers in our governments are separated to prevent an unbalanced distribution of governmental power which can lead to abuse and corruption, one group proposes the laws, another tests them, and yet another enforces them. This is necessary in our kind of government, but in other systems of government they might not be needed since the balance of power maintains itself in other ways.
• Protection of human rights, civili liberties, political freedoms? A nice thought, but once again superfluous in many forms of government. We have the need to guarantee these things in liberal democracy precisely *because* liberal democracy doesn't guarantee these things on its own. Guaranteeing everybody's political freedom isn't necessary, for example, in a form of government where everyone can vote on every proposed measure at all times; it's inherent in the system.

One thing that's important to keep in mind is that mankind isn't rational, so although I won't rule out the possibility, some super-advanced, perfect model is highly unlikely.

It's more likely than you may think. We are on the brink of developing true AI; if such a thing is possible, it won't happen a thousand years from now, it will happen within the next 50 years or less. If it does, you might imagine a society governed by an objective and perfect AI, one lacking human weakness yet bound by the moral code we give it to guarantee the maximum amount of happiness. Such an AI driven society could develop into a post-scarcity society; one with ultimate freedom for all citizens yet without anything approaching liberal democracy.

Even if we don't develop AI, we could alter our own evolution and *become* more rational as a species. We could direct our evolution precisely along those paths that make liberal democracy superfluous. Think about it, why do we have liberal democracy to begin with? Because we don't play well with others without a system that guides us toward that behavior. If our innate nature is changed to be more cooperative, for example, then we have no need for some official system of democratic government since we'd already gravitate towards a consensus driven cooperative society.

And of course, even barring all that, we *have* more rational as a society over time. Why could this trend not continue? It will never be perfect without artificial intervention, but there's a hell of a lot of ground we can still cover between our current imperfect society and that unattainable utopian one. Not if we fool ourselves into thinking our current systems can not or should never be replaced, however.

You can claim that I'm falling under the 'end of history illusion', but I can also claim that you're falling under the 'end of history illusion illusion'. Either of us may be right, but only time can tell.

 

[dystopian]

You can claim that I'm falling under the 'end of history illusion', but I can also claim that you're falling under the 'end of history illusion illusion'. Either of us may be right, but only time can tell.

Cute; but not really a serious argument, right?

Anyway, I don't really think it's a matter of just saying 'only time will tell'. That's like saying we shouldn't say that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, because only time can tell if the pattern holds. The fact is that every single time when people have put out some variation of 'we're at the end of history', they turned out to be wrong. The fact is also that some of us can already imagine better systems than what we've experimented with so far (and that's ignoring the untold potential of things we can't begin to imagine), and some are going even further and implementing some of these systems. So right there we have evidence of past experiences and patterns, along with the evidence that if nothing else it is STILL POSSIBLE for us to come up with and adopt new systems. This in contrast to people who say that we *are* at the end of history, who have no evidence at all.

 

[rousseau]

You can claim that I'm falling under the 'end of history illusion', but I can also claim that you're falling under the 'end of history illusion illusion'. Either of us may be right, but only time can tell.

Cute; but not really a serious argument, right?

Anyway, I don't really think it's a matter of just saying 'only time will tell'. That's like saying we shouldn't say that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, because only time can tell if the pattern holds. The fact is that every single time when people have put out some variation of 'we're at the end of history', they turned out to be wrong. The fact is also that some of us can already imagine better systems than what we've experimented with so far (and that's ignoring the untold potential of things we can't begin to imagine), and some are going even further and implementing some of these systems. So right there we have evidence of past experiences and patterns, along with the evidence that if nothing else it is STILL POSSIBLE for us to come up with and adopt new systems. This in contrast to people who say that we *are* at the end of history, who have no evidence at all.

I'm not saying that your argument isn't feasible, it actually makes a lot of sense, but personally I'm not convinced. Thing is, convincing you to not be convinced as well isn't a big priority for me so I don't feel a need to go into a big spiel. I do appreciate your input, though, I definitely learned something.

 

[dystopian]

I'm not saying that your argument isn't feasible, it actually makes a lot of sense, but personally I'm not convinced. Thing is, convincing you to not be convinced as well isn't a big priority for me so I don't feel a need to go into a big spiel. I do appreciate your input, though, I definitely learned something.

Okay.

I should point out that the whole 'unable to convince one self of future change' *is* at the crux of the end of history illusion. Here, read this for someone else's perspective on the end of history illusion and how it relates to this topic: http://roarmag.org/2013/01/end-of-history-illusion-fukuyama/

 

[rjh01]

Also I suggest you look up articles about motivations. Here is a general one on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation. Also look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Then you will see the subject is huge and complex.

 

[dystopian]

Also I suggest you look up articles about motivations. Here is a general one on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation. Also look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Then you will see the subject is huge and complex.

Yes, Fukuyama oversimplifies the issue of human needs and motivations in order to support the idea of his personal ideology being the natural end-state of human political evolution. His appeal to the desire to be recognized does sit towards the upper end (but not the top) of the pyramid of needs; but just because he can create a spurious link between the development of liberal democracy and a human need that sits high up on the pyramid of needs doesn't mean that liberal democracy is therefore the best and final form of government. Beyond that, I seriously question the idea that we developed democracy because of our desire to be recognized by others; just because we can vote doesn't mean we have our need for the esteem of others met, and democracy was developed less with that in mind and more the general understanding that there's a high chance that we might not agree with the people in charge and that through democracy we at least have *some* say in what happens. I don't think that is synonymous with having the recognition of others.

If we DO accept the idea that we can rate governmental forms on how they conform to say, maslows hierarchy of needs, then liberal democracy can't really represent the end state since it fails to adequately meet our need for self-actualization. Only a governmental/societal system that allows individuals to fully develop themselves according to their own whim could possibly represent that end state. In our current capitalist forms of democracies, it is impossible for everyone to do that. You can't achieve full self-actualization in a system that demands such significant chunks of your time and focus on just making enough money to be able to survive. Only a post-scarcity society in which you could bugger off and spend a lifetime mastering the art of pottery or whatever you find meaningful could qualify as a possible end-state.

Of course, all that said; maslows hierachy of needs is not in fact well supported by research; some research even suggests there isn't any definite hierarchy of needs at all. Human needs and desires can't be pinned down in some simple universally applicable diagram. Just like we can't simply rank forms of government on a straight line from 'worst' to 'best'.

 

[rousseau]

As an aside, even if you find his premise faulty, the book itself is a good read anyway. I haven't knocked off a large chunk of it yet, but so far it reads like a meta-history: an analysis of the undercurrents of history itself, how it moves, and how people have looked at it in modern times.

But then, this is the first book I've ever read that was something like a modern history (although it seems just as much philosophical and political as historical), so for all I know there are loads better out there in that vein. In any case some of the ideas he mentions are beautifully expressed.

 

[rjh01]

dystopian - I do not think it is important about which theory of motivation is correct. What is important is that many different people have written books on the subject all with different ideas. Many of them would be at least partly correct under certain conditions.

As for democracy I think that will exist if certain conditions are met. These include (there probably are others)
1. A large % of the population that earns more money than is needed for food and housing and other basic needs. There are not many subsistence people who are politically active.
2. Education. People must have certain knowledge and the ability to work things out for themselves
3. Freedom. Especially the right of free speech.
4. Lack of fear. If people are afraid that they are in danger from outside forces then they will not allow other opinions to be heard.

 

[dystopian]

dystopian - I do not think it is important about which theory of motivation is correct. What is important is that many different people have written books on the subject all with different ideas. Many of them would be at least partly correct under certain conditions.

A broken clock is right two times a day too; that doesn't mean you should tell time using a broken clock.

When you're discussing the effects of motivation on the development of culture and politics then *of course* it matters which theory of motivation is correct. One should always strive to base one's arguments on correct information.

 

[Perspicuo]

There was a new threat to liberal democracy from 9-11 on to the present in the form of US eavesdropping on every netizen in the world. The real threat is that it actually is justifiable, which upends one of the main liberties which is the secrecy of correspondence.

The next threats to that vision will be (1) the impending global warming disaster which will affect every port city in the world and the reach of tropical diseases, and (2) the rise of robot labor force, which will endanger everything from mental health care professionals and teachers, to blue collar workers and prostitutes.

 

[Tristan Scott]

No, see, here's where you fall into the end of history illusion yourself. *You* can't 'foresee' any form of government that is both better and fundamentally different; but so what? Before liberal democracy existed, very few people could imagine it yet here we are. Let's take a look at some of these traits:

• Competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties? Superfluous in a direct e-democracy. Why, for example, do we need elections at all when you could have a system where every citizen can at all times vote on any proposed measure via referendum?
• Separation of powers into different branches of government? Superfluous in any form of functional anarchy; and while anarchy may not be tenable on the large scale *today*, technological advances could (and are) changing that. Such separation is similarly superfluous in an adhocracy or direct e-democracy. Powers in our governments are separated to prevent an unbalanced distribution of governmental power which can lead to abuse and corruption, one group proposes the laws, another tests them, and yet another enforces them. This is necessary in our kind of government, but in other systems of government they might not be needed since the balance of power maintains itself in other ways.
• Protection of human rights, civili liberties, political freedoms? A nice thought, but once again superfluous in many forms of government. We have the need to guarantee these things in liberal democracy precisely *because* liberal democracy doesn't guarantee these things on its own. Guaranteeing everybody's political freedom isn't necessary, for example, in a form of government where everyone can vote on every proposed measure at all times; it's inherent in the system.

The idea of everyone voting on every proposed measure at all times is not new; it's pure democracy, and in it you run the risk of what James Madison termed the "tyranny of the majority", a problem that Plato also discussed in his Republic.

You say "Guaranteeing everybody's political freedom isn't necessary, for example, in a form of government where everyone can vote on every proposed measure at all times; it's inherent in the system." Please explain. I don't see how it could be guaranteed if the majority votes against it.

 

[dystopian]

The idea of everyone voting on every proposed measure at all times is not new; it's pure democracy,

There's just one problem; pure democracy has never actually been done, except perhaps on the small tribal level. Only now do we have the means to actually try it on national and global levels.

and in it you run the risk of what James Madison termed the "tyranny of the majority", a problem that Plato also discussed in his Republic.

I am aware. Of course, you don't *really* run into that problem so much when you'd limit the manner in which proposals to vote on are brought forward. More than that, in terms of creating the potential for the tyranny of the majority, there's no real difference between letting everybody vote on everything instead of voting for a group that then can vote on everything; if anything, the latter has a greater chance of producing tyranny of the 'majority'; because the governing political group(s) may act upon the assumption that since they got the majority of votes they therefore have the backing of the majority on everything.

You say "Guaranteeing everybody's political freedom isn't necessary, for example, in a form of government where everyone can vote on every proposed measure at all times; it's inherent in the system." Please explain. I don't see how it could be guaranteed if the majority votes against it.

At that point it would no longer be a system where everybody can vote on every proposed measure at all times, would it? It's also just as possible, even more so in some respects, for the majority in a liberal democracy to push toward such a tyrannical exclusion of a group. Sure, a country's constitution may technically forbid such discrimination... but that has never stopped any majority that wants to discriminate. A constitution is ultimately just a piece of paper, after all; it can be changed. In fact, there probably isn't a liberal democracy on the planet that doesn't explicitly allow for its own constitution to be changed through a majority vote. And in liberal democracies, the people delegate power to a minority that then acts on the basis of representing the majority; which means that if a few hundred politicians could be made to agree that a certain group needs to be discriminated against, they can simply change the laws regardless of what the actual majority thinks; after all, the majority voted them into power and won't have another say until the next elections. If EVERYBODY could vote on every proposal however; it'd be far less likely that a minority could impose its order on society as a whole.

Incidentally, there's no reason to assume that "everybody can vote on every proposed measure" *also* means that 'everybody can propose any kind of measure, even ones that say some people can't vote on every proposed measure from now on.'