Rating: 
Summary: Fundamentally flawed and full of nonsense.
Review: This book is basically vested on Hegel and thymos (search for recognition).
Hegel's theories are fundamentally wrong and thymos is not an essential human necessity.
As Bertrand Russell explains in his 'Unpopular Essays': 'Hegel's philosophy is so odd that one would not accept him to be able to get sane men to accept it ... I was cured ... by discovering that everything he said on the philosophy of mathematics was plain nonsense.'
Nietzsche said that whoever got Hegelitis would never be cured.
Russell was cured, Fukuyama not.By vesting his theory on thymos, Fukuyama's comments fail to catch time and again essential facts on the individual, social and international level. The outcome of his reasonings are complete nonsense.
Hereafter some examples. To get his Hegelian system working, he has to assume that human nature 'changed over time'(p. 63). I wonder if the selfish genes did the same. 'Imperialism ... arises directly out of the aristocratic master's desire to be recognized as superior - his megalothymia.' (p.259)
This is plain nonsense. Imperialism is about political / economical power to subject other people in order to get slaves, streams of dividends, territories ... depending on the period and/or the countries. 'The desire for religious mastery - that is, the recognition of one's own gods and idols by other peoples - ... is not an undifferentiated struggle for power ... but the struggle for recognition.' (p.259)
This is plain nonsense. Religious wars for mastery (were) are about power, territory and capital. E.g. 'A world lit by fire' by W. Manchester: by adhering to Luther, the taxpayers didn't have to pay the compulsory indulgences to the Pope. 'The willingness to risk one's life for pure prestige plays such an important role in Hegel's account of history.' (p.150)
For Hegel yes, but not for me. All noblemen fought one another with mercenaries (see the parody on the Swiss in Utopia by Thomas More, or E. Luttwak). No soldier will ever put his life in danger. However the nobility used the argument of the 'risk of their life for the defense of the country' in order to get a tax exempt status. One of the crucial factors for the outbreak of the first World war was, for Fykuyama, the fact ' that many European publics simply wanted war because they were fed up with the dullness and lack of community in civilian life.' (p.331)
I doubt if firmly. But I am sure that one of the crucial factors was the fact that the Kaiser felt that his empire was threatened. He didn't fight (he had no thymos), but fled his country at the end of the war as a thief in the night. (Stefan Zweig: The World of Yesterday). His final thesis that liberalism vanquished nationalism ( = the End of History) is an illusion. Nationalism (the survival of the nation) will always be stronger than liberalism for it serves the essential human characteristic of survival (of the genes). For me, this book is a classic example of what Jean Fourastié called a 'conceptual delirium'. But more importantly, the author is on the side of war and not of peace. As another great philosopher stated 'Hegel's war of nations became Marx's war of classes and Hitler's war of races', a truly disastrous opinion with deadly intellectual and physical consequences. N.B. In the 'Assembly of Women' by Aristophanes, the assembly doesn't force handsome boys to marry ugly women, but forces handsome boys to have sex with older women before they could marry the girl of their choice. (p.294)
(p.348 point 13) Socrates was not executed because he exercized free speech, but because he preached against democracy (G. Koolschijn)
Rating: 
Summary: Good Book - Needs More on the History of the End of History
Review: I thought this book was excellent. He basically argues that since the 19th century, there have been no new developments in political theory. To him, Marx is really a philosophical step backward from his more capable progenitor Hegel. This argument is sound...political Marxism is really a return to the ancient republics and to the fishy general will concept of Montaigne and the French Revolution. I think the book is excellent and a must read for an intellectual analysis of modernity. I hope the book gets more scholarly attention. For now it seems that it does not get the academic attention it deserves if simply because the author worked for Reagan. Be forewarned; this book will probably make you want to read Hegel. One disagreement I had with the author was not so much a disagreement as what I feel is the author's failure to flesh out the theoretical challenges to the liberal order in terms of the development of that order. To be more specific, he holds that Nietzsche's criticism stating people's desire for recognition is subsumed in the liberal order such that we become a generation of men without chests. The struggle for recognition remains unresolved for the most ambitious. It seems to me that this idea should be projected backwards in explaining the various permutations of national socialism that proliferated in the modern era. Indeed, the liberal order was a failure everywhere but America up to WW2, unable to overcome threats from within in most cases and, in a few other cases, threats from without. It was only when the United States invaded and occupied Western Europe and major portions of the Pacific and then explicitly built a liberal bulwark against the communist threat that the data shows a growing impetus towards democracy. Without that jumpstart, fascism seems to have been the natural tendency of most emerging modern states. So I would say that there is a gap between emerging modern states and the actual end of history that Fukuyama envisions and that this breech is not naturally crossed. Since Fukuyama admits this is the crux of the modern problem, I'm not disagreeing with him. I'm merely suggesting that he project it backwards as well as forwards.
Rating: 
Summary: not a simple thesis
Review: I suspect that many have skipped reading this book because they believe it advances a simplistic, triumphalist thesis: the fall of the Soviet Union proves that the USA is the greatest country of all time and will be so forever. In fact Fukuyama first presented a paper with the book's basic arguments many months before the fall of the USSR and before just about anyone thought that fall was imminent. But beyond that, Fukyama made perfectly clear in this book that a very large part of the world (the Islamic part) had not yet accepted democracy. No great insight, you might say, but my point is that he is not so stupid as to try to pound square pegs into round holes. Most importantly, he has an extremely interesting discussion of "recognition," something many have said plays an enormous role in politics without explaining what the demand for recognition IS. Even Huntington says that people are more attached to cultural identities than to anything else, but you won't find such a thoughtful extended discussion of the topic in his book or anywhere else, including books on multiculturalism. Fukuyama's book is worth reading even if only for that lengthy part.
Rating:
Summary: Get your thinking cap on for this one
Review: First pardon any simplifications in this review and take all of the review as a simplification. This isn't a simple book. It took me many chapters to see where Francis Fukuyama was going with this book. In some ways I think he could have condensed the whole thing down and gotten to the points of his argument more clearly. Yet, in the end, I learned something that will allow me to have more insite into the human condition than before. This makes the book well worth the effort. One of the main points is that history has direction, in short: we get closer to a theoretical goal rather than just move through time doing things. I think he takes too many chapters in "proving" this but it is a basic foundation to the rest of the work. Another main point of the book is that democracy is the end of history. That in democracy society has found the best way to achieve the goal of history. What is the goal, a complex satisfaction of Thymos or, put way too simply, the ability to feel good about yourself. Now here I have a problem with thinking that this is the end of history simply because we haven't been at this stage long enough. I personally think that democracy came about because more people got more educated and we have along way to go in getting people educated. Therefor it is possible that a new system will be developed that will make democracy passe. The clarity I got out of this book was a language regarding human satisfaction that was better than I had before. It is complex, especially when you take it from one human to human society, but of great interest to anyone interested in knowing what can make things better. That's both in a macro ways, such as if you are Bill Gates or the President of the United States, or in micro ways such as if you are just running a small business or interacting with a circle of friends. All in all very, very well worth the time. Bill
Rating:
Summary: Great insights
Review: I remember when Richard Dawkin's selfish gene was taken literally by a member of Parlement, who wondered if the opposition party was afflicted by the genetic disorder. Fukuyama's "End of History" has been taken the same way. This is a fabulous work about the philosophical "Last Man", not about the final homo-sapien. Once past the title, this work expresses some of the best philosophical thinking about our current society. It's "final" supposition may speak correctly about capitalism and democracy but the future is full of other possibilities, so I would oppose that position. However, as a superb explaination of 20th-21st century man, this work has no competition.
Rating:
Summary: Read the Whole Book
Review: Reviews typically focus on the "end of history" part of Fukuyama's argument, and tend to forget the "last man" part (the former derived from Hegel and the later from Nietzsche). But they cannot be separated, and it is the last man argument that is particularly trenchant today. Are we willing to forgo any comfort or security _at all_ (never mind major sacrifices) to vindicate a closely held value? I think the reaction of the French and the Germans to recent events indicates that we are indeed becoming the "men without chests."
Rating:
Summary: A philosophical work about the world around us
Review: "The End of History and the Last Man" by Francis Fukuyama has an apocalyptic-looking cover and a title that needs explication. But the book is not a doomsday scenario, quite the contrary, as the explanation of the title will show. Fukuyama, who is Bernard Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, published this work of political philosophy in 1992, and in it, he explains in a logical, well-considered progression why he believes that liberal democracy is the final resting point of progressive history, but that that very liberal democracy can render humanity as less than what it could be - comfort seeking, self-involved, "men without chests." The book, which could be subtitled "I Love Hegel and Why You Should, Too," builds on Hegel's idea that there is a Universal, progressive History. This is to what Fukuyama is referring when he says that History has reached its end; he doesn't mean that nothing else will happen, but that the progression of History toward a universally beneficial system of government has culminated in liberal democracy. He defines liberalism - "Political liberalism can be defined simply as a rule of law that recognizes certain individual rights or freedoms from government control" and he defines those rights in three classes, civil rights, religious rights and political rights. He defines democracy as "the right held universally by all citizens to have a share of political power, that is, the right of all citizens to vote and participate in politics." His concentration on Hegel arises from Fukuyama's contention that we've been very conditioned by Karl Marx's influence to believe that most social and political problems come from economic and class differences. Fukuyama disagrees, saying that conflict comes from Hegel's theory that some people will risk their lives for prestige, or recognition. He writes that the aristocracy was created by such people - people who risked their lives for prestige and were able to enslave others. He writes that liberal democracy resolves the tension between slave and master because it makes the slaves their own masters. But he cautions that Nietzsche believed in war and conflict as a way for humanity to express its passions, and that without conflict (Fukuyama says that liberal democracies do not attack each other), humans will become soft, meaningless, passionless, "men without chests." Fukuyama does not advocate that people become "last men," even though in this volume, he believes the End of History is being reached. I read this book because Thomas L. Friedman faulted it for "not going far enough" in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization," but I wouldn't agree with that. Friedman clearly owes a lot to Fukuyama, directly or indirectly, and the roots of many of Friedman's ideas are explicated very elegantly here. I find this book difficult to write about because it contains so many interrelated and complex ideas that are truly fascinating, including Fukuyama's views on the role of science in reaching the End of History. (In fact, in a newer book, "Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution," he writes that the End of History may not have been reached because the End of Science hasn't been reached. So reads a review of this book on the Web.) I highly recommend this book. It really stretched my mind in new directions and helped me to see the world and our current governmental systems in new ways. His integration of key philosophical work and thought with political history was fascinating and had a ring of truth.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking and intellectual, but a challenging read
Review: This book is excellent for anyone interested in political philosophy and current issues. It explores relevent themes and events from a unique, philisophical perspective. Fukuyama's "recognition" thesis is original and thought-provoking, and it certainly merits consideration and discussion. The book itself is extremely thorough and well-written, but beware...the book is by no means easy to read, and it requires a bright mind and a keen focus. If you are looking for a book that is both stimulating and challening, this may be worth your while!
Rating:
Summary: Reparing the damage
Review: Social institutions, families, schools, clubs, and churches, play a key role in teaching values. These values underpin society and social interaction. South Africa has a legacy, which saw such institutions torn apart. Deputy President Zuma said to the launch of the Moral Regeneration Movement: "something is wrong within the fabric of our society, and that we urgently need to do something about it". Repairing this fabric may well require more than retracing the historical causes; building something up is more difficult than tearing it down. The disruption of social institutions has apparently taken place before, even on a global scale. The industrial revolution saw the dramatic change from an agricultural to an industrial society. The shift from gemeinschaft (community) to gesellschaft (society) shattered communities and community institutions. Crime in all major cities increased, families broke down, illegitimacy rates rose and alcohol consumption rocketed. Yet by the middle of the nineteenth century the disruption had began to recede. The book, the Great Disruption tackles the the transition from the industrial to the post industrial era. In the first section, Francis Fukuyama provides evidence of wide scale changes in social order and looks at the depletion of what he calls social capital. In the second section he asks where social order comes from and how it evolves. The third part of the book looks to sources of social order. Charles Handy, the management guru, notes that Fukuyama writes books, which generate heated debate even among those who have not read them. Fukuyama believes that social order once disrupted tends to be remade once again. He sees the world wide social disruption as starting to recede. He does not believe that capitalism depletes calls social capital; in fact,he claims it creates new order to replace the one that it destroyed. This book is thought provoking. Fukuyama raises the very issues, with which South Africa is currently grappling. Churchill once said that first we shape our institutions, and then they shape us. How these institutions should be shaped, and what must be done to shape them remains one of this country's most pressing challenges.
Rating:
Summary: Way too much Hegel
Review: Francis is a very smart man who was expensively miseducated. He knows an elaborate amount about the 19th century German philosophers like the excruciatingly boring Hegel. Nonetheless, since his college days he has self-educated himself to a nearly heroic extent about the real world. Unfortunately in this book, he tries to combine Hegel and reality, with uneven results. He has largely dropped German philosophy in his subsequent and more readable books. His general thesis is reasonable but limited: the war over ideology is over, capitalism and democracy have won. However, ideological conflict has only comprised a tiny fraction of history. Most of history consists of what Lenin himself called "Who, whom?" Who will do it to whom? The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a classic example. A related problem is that history isn't over because while most people may approve of capitalist and democrat states, many are not satisfied with the borders of existing states. Finally, it's not clear that much of the world (e.g., Africa) has what it takes to be successfully capitalist and democratic. Seen Lynn and Vanhanen's new blockbuster "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" for tables showing the average IQ of 81 different countries, and the high correlations between IQ, GDP per capita, economic freedom, and democracy.
| 
