/endofhistory/

What the hell was his problem?

it was an emancipatory time, the wall had just came down, the main conflict in global IR vanished in a two-year timespan, all relatively bloodless.

Ironically, he actually foreshadowed a lot of things about the 21st century, except in the exact opposite way he thought they would turn out.

He fell for the Reagan meme too hard and accidentally invented neoconservatism, much to his hilarious annoyance. His heart was in the right place, but ultimately his work is just an example of how historical materialism can be misapplied.

Today he is still relevant because some retarded old fuck named Sam Huntington critiqued his theories in an extremely ahistorical and ham-fisted manner and made him seem intelligent and articulate in comparison. In a sense, Fukuyama and Huntington represent two sides of the same US diplomatic coin: naive ideals, and petty opportunism rationalized with exceptionalism.

well boys I think we settled it let's pack up this thread!

But that's not Leo Strauss, user.

He drew conclusions too early, turns out the 90s were just an oasis of relative stability and things would go downhill afterwards.

...

Naw fam.
I think when all the chapters are written in the great book of history, Generation X in USA/Europe will be counted as the most fortunate that ever lived and the best time and place to be born.

He misinterpreted Hegel's philosophy of history.

kek, the 90s was europes worst decade since the 40s. genocide, collapse in living standards etc.
and america's been at peace since civil war

Rwandan genocide

Didn't happen. Only whites can be racist.

R E L A T I V E

...

Social Democracy is just like basically flawless, bro LMAO

Relative stability, from the perspective of international relations and a stable international economy. Small national wars of small economic players don't concern large scale capitalists, and therefore don't concern the more powerful states of the world.

he was wrong, which he admitted and no he totally changed his opinion about world problems, capitalism etc.

...

Its peak liberalism. I want to vomit when i read about this.

It was still jack shit compared to basically any European war before WW2

too much ideology

Yeah, but he was writing to Americans and Brits

I mean, it was pretty good for the US and for Western and Northern Europe.

Southern and Eastern, not so much.

Try being Black American in 93 lol. Ever hear of the riots, or crack wars??????

key word here is "relative", dinguses
it was still shit, but liberals could rejoice with the soviet union gone, welfare states amputated, "democracy" being brought to former ML states, globalization of information etc.

i believe the plural of dingus is dingi

REVISIONISTS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

People should actually read the book before they spout off. Some of his pessimist last chapters actually foreshadow the place we find ourselves at culturally. And he wasn't wrong about the capitalist-bureaucratic nature of future states as a predictions; almost all states today are exactly of that kind, and change is not on the horizon. If you just strip out the optimism and cooing about liberalism, it still stands.

Huntington basically predicted everything we see in the world and Fukuyama was the wrong one hmm makes you think.

Nothing of what Huntington predicted came true. The very concept of a "clash of civilization" as he conceived it is nonsense and it has been thoroughly discredited.