Book Reflections: The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama

This book is certainly not obscure, but it still took me more than half a year to finish reading it. To be honest, I preferred the first and middle parts of the book, which explain why authoritarian and dictatorial regimes may eventually collapse, the superiority of liberal democracy, the complementary relationship between capitalism and liberal democracy, the directional nature of history and the constraining role of natural science, as well as the idea that humans are driven by the desire for recognition. I found these arguments highly persuasive, comprehensive, and supported by numerous examples that made them relatively easy to understand.

However, I disagree with the book’s conclusion that we are now at the “end of history.” If humans are driven by the desire for recognition and seek superiority, then although capitalist liberal democracies provide many channels for individuals to pursue excellence in different ways, this sense of superiority, as discussed earlier in the book’s analysis of nationalism, does not necessarily lead to full recognition. Where there is superiority, there will always be some who are “masters” and others who are “slaves,” meaning inequality will continue to exist. As a result, there can never be truly “universal recognition” in every aspect of society, nor will there ever be the so-called “last man” as Fukuyama defines him: someone who is secure, materially abundant, and no longer needs to struggle or strive. Therefore, as Fukuyama himself emphasized, liberal democracy is not inherently stable.

In Fukuyama’s definition, the end of history means the absence of war and bloody revolution. This definition does not include economic conflicts, such as trade wars. From this perspective, it becomes understandable why he argues that history has ended. However, unlike Fukuyama, I believe that economic wars can also be extremely brutal and should be included when evaluating whether history has truly ended. Therefore, I think it is still too early to claim that some parts of the world have already reached the “end of history.” Even if I were to accept Fukuyama’s definition, I think it is important to emphasize that while history may have a direction, this does not mean it is unidirectional, because it can move forward, backward, or stagnate. I believe this is also what Fukuyama ultimately tried to emphasize in the final part of the book.