If you actually read End of History, it isn’t so much a celebration of the new liberal order as it is a pessimistic prediction of a permanent, stable unjust world order. Less “We did it guys, history is over!” and more “Maybe Marx was wrong about the inevitability of Socialism and this is all there ever will be for the end of time. And that kind of blows.”
I would compare his viewpoint to that of Frank Herbert, author of Dune. He is an Anticommunist not in the sense that he believes Communism is bad, but in the sense that Socialism does not represent a new, stable mode of production that will inevitably rise from the old, but that the facets of the current system - states, corporations, families, etc. - are the stable entities that will stand the test of time.
In my political scientist tier list I put him firmly in the “Wrong but not bad” tier.
If you actually read End of History, it isn’t so much a celebration of the new liberal order as it is a pessimistic prediction of a permanent, stable unjust world order. Less “We did it guys, history is over!” and more “Maybe Marx was wrong about the inevitability of Socialism and this is all there ever will be for the end of time. And that kind of blows.”
I would compare his viewpoint to that of Frank Herbert, author of Dune. He is an Anticommunist not in the sense that he believes Communism is bad, but in the sense that Socialism does not represent a new, stable mode of production that will inevitably rise from the old, but that the facets of the current system - states, corporations, families, etc. - are the stable entities that will stand the test of time.
In my political scientist tier list I put him firmly in the “Wrong but not bad” tier.
Whoa that’s interesting, never knew that Fukuyama didn’t really praise the liberal end-state he thought was reached.