Status Updates From An Analysis of Francis Fuku...

Wait, what? Fukuyama believes that technology can be a threat to liberal democracy?

It keeps getting more and more complicated... Is this really all in the same book? I don't see how many of these things are related. While the basic premises does not make sense, a lot of the other ideas (which, unfortunately, are not the primary focus of international relations professors) are worth studying.

I agree with Huntington's criticism.

And Fukuyama's Reply to His Critics? Hilarious, lol.

Nice.

It's finally getting interesting!

It's funny that Fukuyama based his theory on the US winning the Cold War, then proceeded to state that the failure of one country or even a whole region to incorporate the system does not mean the failure of the system... What?

Also, while the idea of a constant regression to democracy is interesting, didn't he just say that nothing would replace it once it's come? How, then, would there be regression?

Ancient Greece is superior to Ancient Egypt according to who?? This is ridiculous. You can't compare two ancient cities based on modern standards! Plus, Ancient Greece was not as "free" as claimed. They had slaves, too, and women had no rights.

Come on.

So many fallacies.

Fukuyama, hun, as an academician, you should know that there is nothing accidental... It's just that people don't know what caused "the accident".

WHAT are his reasons? Stop telling me that he outlined the reasons, and tell me what his reasons are!

I wonder why very few have heard of Kojeve...

That the USA won the war and spread its policies is not really about the success of liberal democracy. Success is not the right term to use, because it was a victory, a "rising above the other" when there were only two factions on the frontlines. The political policies did not win people over; the US's strategies and the various factors that led to the fall of the USSR and communism did.

Ok, I agree that societies change because of unsatisfied human needs (among other things), but assuming that only one of these needs is leading the change is outrageous. That being said, so is the whole idea that human needs will one day be satisfied. Have you ever seen a man who has everything? Ever seen how unhappy these people can be? Total happiness is unattainable in this world.

Disagree.

So, basically, just because Fukuyama taught at big universities, his BS theory became well-known. Nice.

Professors everywhere talk about ancient philosophy... How is Bloom special in this context?

It's sad that this is still an "important" theory in the study of international relations. I would understand if it were taught in a course about "disproven theories" (which, unfortunately, does not exist) along with Marx's theories, but they are actually two of the main tenets of the study until this day.

I repeat, sad.

So much repetition...

Although the book (and obviously others, since there was competition between the two on the media) claims that Fukuyama and Huntington were on opposite camps, there are some fundamental similarities between their theories. For instance, they both argue that different cultures, be they political or social, would undoubtedly clash. This would obviously lead to a victor. Fukuyama just believed it would be liberalism.

Who says "other" animals do not require recognition?

Plus, just because humans seek recognition does not mean they'll try to build a society in which everyone is recognized. Humans are selfish and seldom think of the greater good. So, (again,) I don't see how such a utopian society would come to exist at any point in time.

P.S. terrible choice of philosophers, Fuku.

I realized that many in the west become so engrossed in what they study and work on (because of specialization, which I understand increases efficiency) that they begin to see the whole world solely from that perspective. I.e. Fukuyama thinks that political policy is the main influencer of human society/history, whereas there are so many factors and the relationship is not linear/one-sided.

I tried checking the Glossary/People Mentioned and found nothing that would really explain why Fukuyama's teachers were big shots. Wish the authors would've put in a little more effort to make that clear.

Back to my discussion with Google, I guess.

Oh, he was taught by Huntington. Now things are starting to make sense.

"The text influenced western foreign policy but has been undermined by world events since publication."

I love how realistic this is. Why are so many people still struggling to accept a disproven theory? Why is it still debated?

Thank you once again, Macat.

See, just looking into the author's background makes it obvious that he is very pro-western. Thank you, Macat. Great going so far.