门垚

Introduction

Fukuyama is an American scholar who was born in Japanese， he gets his Political PHD in Harvard University， whose supervisor is Samuel Phillips Huntington， one of most well-known political scholars in 20 centuries. In 1993， he published a book named “The end of history and the last man”， which causes a great sensation in the world. The book quickly becomes a bestseller at that time， and was translated to 14 languages.（Wroe， 2002） His ideas aroused heated discussion in a large scale， although there were both pro and con voices. In this essay， I will firstly introduce his basic ideas， and talk about the roots and sources behind that. Then I plan to discuss criticisms from three positions of ontology and epistemology.

Between the late 1980s and the early 1990s， the world was facing a dramatical change， the Soviet Union broke down in 1991， and a lot of communist east European countries also experienced revolution. Whether communism can survive in modern world became a common question across the word. （Brown， 2011）This is the historical background of Fukuyamas thoughts. With the biggest socialist country collapses， liberal democracy， one of the dominant values in capitalist world， triumphs over the communism at that time. This is the ideology background of FuKuyamas arguments. （Ibid）

Review of Fukuyamas standpoint

In general， Fukuyama（1992， pp xi） thinks that liberal democracy is the final form for all nations， none of any other system and regime can match the superiority of liberal democracy. Any revolutions and any social changing attempts are all towards the direction of liberal democracy. So the human history ends in liberal democracy. Fukuyama proves his arguments in the following ways.

Firstly， Fukuyamas thoughts were greatly influenced by Hegel， Marx and Kojeves views on history.（Dunne，1993） In Hegels philosophy， the social history is a continuous process， and the driven force behind is not a specific form of time or space， but it is the “free consciousness” that dominates the human society. As Hegel states “world history is nothing more than the progress of 'free' consciousness”. （Isil， 2006） Hegelian history here not simply means specific history， but it is a general idea which refers to the general common conscious beliefs existing in whole human societies.（Burrell，1991） In“the end of history and the last man”， Fukuyama（1992， pp145） explains that Hegel asserts the human history terminates at a point when all the human desires can be fulfilled in the social form， so Hegelian history ends in a liberal regime. In Fukuyamas understanding， Marx also believes the human history has a ending， that is， communism.（Fukuyama， 1992， pp65）. In fact， Marx believes that in final stage of human society， realm of freedom will take place of the realm of necessity， people will achieve self-liberalism. （Bertram&Chitty， 1994） As for Kojeve， Fukuyama（1992， pp200） claims that he is a great interpreter of Hegelianist， who wrote that liberalism and freedom have take place of the relationship between master and slaves in the history， so the history has come to an end. Kojeve also states that following the Hegels dialectics， the world will finally become a universal and homogeneous country.endprint

Then， Fukuyama demonstrates the driven force leading to the end of history are technology and economy. He thinks（1992， pp91）， the direction of history development is the result of natural science development. With the accumulation of natural science， the pace of industrialization speeds up， thus bringing the liberal democracy， and generalizing our history. On the other hand， the function of economy development can be seen as the result of the natural science accumulation. Fukuyama thinks that the popularity of natural science can bring nations with homogeneous economy form， leading them to similar development path. He believes that similar economy form can bring about similar political system， and then lead to similar ideology in each society. （NER， 2005 ）So he claims that the liberal democracy in advanced country will occupy the whole world.

Is there definite casual relation between the development in technology and economy and liberal democracy？ Fukuyamas answer is no， because he also emphasizes human nature and human desireare the fundamental drive forces for history development. Following Hegels notion of “Struggle for recognition”， Fukuyama aslo states that Platos idea of human nature. Plato describes soul as three elements in his book “the Republic”， first part is desire， second is reason， the third is thymos or spiritedesss. （Fukuyama， 1992， pp74） Desire and reason can explain most human activities. Desire encourages human to explore the world and look for new things， and reason helps human find ways in exploring world. （Thad， 2008） Fukuyama（1992， pp187） demonstrates that desire and reason can explain the process of industrialization and economical development. It is the third elements thymos that forms the efforts in liberal democracy. Moreover， he describes（1992， pp207） the Hegels “struggle for recognition” in Kojeves understanding of master-slave dialectic. Kojeve thinks people are equal at the beginning， master realizes their own values and wants to find recognition through struggling， and they win and become masters for some slaves. Since then， the masters only set up recognition from their slaves instead of themselves. The human nature of these slaves is incomplete because they are the first man and did not have of the process of struggling for recognition. So masters recognition based on incomplete slaves is incomplete. As for slaves， they gradually find their strength and recognition from labor activities， so the position and relation between slaves and masters changes. Then the slaves want to break the rule formed by masters before. To keep their balance between masters and slaves， the world will become homogeneous and universal， which means the end of history. Kojeve thinks The French Revolution and Napoleons War have demonstrated this view. （Augustine， 1996）endprint

What kind of society will we have after the history comes to end？ Fukuyama summarized that Marx ends in communism， Hegel and Kant end in absolute spirit and freedom， Kojeve ends in large scale social conflict. Fukuyama s answer is liberalism， based on the analysis of political legitimacy.（Gintis 2006） Fukuyama （1992 pp15） points out the weeknenss of Strong States 1， namely Far-right politics， is the crisis taking place in ideology. The legitimacy comes from how many middle class people support you. Far-right politics， say Hitlers fascist regime， builds its authority form ruling class instead of democracy. Although it can be exist in some time， it will collapse due to lacking of support from the majorities. Because the benefit of middle class people can not be guaranteed and their voices can not be heard in the regime， people will finally suspect the legitimacy. So democratic regime is definitely better than Far-right politics. As for the weekness of Strong State 2， namely totalitarianism state， represented by the Soviet Union after World War Ⅱ. Fukuyama （1992， pp30） satirizes communism by quoting Andrey Nuikins description that “how many years does that make it that we have been eating pineapples on the moon？ If only we could someday eat our fill of tomatoes here on earth！”Fukuyama supports his idea from economical and political aspects. The leader in Totalitarianism state can own supreme power without any restriction or supervision. It tends to create a governmentthat controls all aspects of citizens life. The most serious problem is that the totalitarianism countries uses economic and ideaistic controlling. Taking the Soviet Union as an example， although many national leaders tried to conduct economy reformation， the national economy is on the edge of collapse before 1991. Civil society is weakened because of strong state， people cannot get the right of freedom， which is a basic human right. In summary， by demonstrating that both Far-right politics and Totalitarianism countries are lack of legitimacy， Fukuyama draws the conclusion that liberal democracy is legal and reasonable.

Competing Ontological and Epistemological Standpoints

Jacque Derrida， one of the most influential French philosopher， father of the school of deconstruction， criticizes Fukuyamas view points in three aspects in his book “Specters of Marx： The state of the debt， the work of mourning and the new international？”. Firstly， Derrida suspects that Fukuyamas liberal democracy lacks grounds. By summarizing ten serious problems in capitalist countries， Derrida contradicts Fukuyama ‘s view that capitalism has won victory in the whole world. These“ten plagues”includes unemployment， Deportation of immigrants， economic war， contradictions of free market， foreign debt， the arms trade， spread of nuclear weapons， inter-ethic wars， Phantom-states within organized crime，and International law？and its institutions.（Derrida， 1994） Fukuyama draws his conclusion simply based on the failure of Fascism and communism. Derrida（1994） argues that many democratic countries has not triumphed as Fukuyamas expectation， some problems even become more and more serious in the developed countries Secondly， Derrida criticizes the logic in the proving process. Fukuyama argues the end of history is liberal democracy， which is a ideal and conceptual notion in the scope of general history. But Fukuyama uses actual history events to prove his ideal idea， for example， to show the failure of communism， Fukuyama cites a large amounts of cases in the history， which can be seen empirical analysis. At the same time， Fukuyama ignores the problems in democratic countries which also can classified as empirical events， as these problems may contradict his standpoints. In short， Fukuyama confuses a ideal meaning and a real meaning， and uses bias facts to support his view.（Dijana， 2012） Thirdly， Derrida claims that the grounds of Fukuyamas arguments come from Hegels “struggle for recognition” and Kojeves “universal and homogeneous state”. But the Hegels arguments are based on human psychology， which can not be proved in the real world. Kojeves arguments is based on the analysis of human desire， which also can not be tested. So “struggle for recognition ” and “universal and homogeneous state” is abstract and unreliable（Hughes， 1994）.endprint

Immanuel Wallerstein， an outstanding American social scientist， seen as a representative for Western Marxism， has his own thinking towards the end of history. The main difference between Wallerstein and Fukuyama can be concluded into three aspects. Firstly， as a Marxist， Wallerstein believes that although capitalism has been adopted by most countries in the world， it will break down when it occupies the whole world. Because capitalism is an outspread economy system， constantly accumulating capital from the rest of non-capitalist countries. So when capitalism becomes the only mode of production， the history of capitalism goes to end.（Okori， 2012） On the contrary， Fukuyama thinks the history ends in capitalist liberal democracy. Secondly， Fukuyama emphasizes the role of technology and economy development and the role of “struggle for recognition” in driving history towards. In his opinion， the history will end in liberal democracy by the two factors. This is in fact a idealism epistemology following Hegelian “absolute spirit”. However， Wallerstein stands in materialism， believing that the history system is dependent on the mode of production. By analyzing the capitalist production mode， Wallerstein predicts that there may be three kinds of historical system when capitalism comes to end， that is， neo-feudalism combining domestic hierarchy system， democratic fascism in other forms， and highly equal socialism. （Andrew， 2007） Thirdly， Fukuyama（1992， pp301） claims that the last man in the world refers to a man created by desire and rationalism without aspiration. Because human ideology is unified by liberal democracy， the most important thing for human is all about economic issues. Although the “struggle for recognition” still exists at that time， people will start war because human ideologies become the same. People turns to sports， arts and economy to find their recognition. In contrast， Wallerstein firmly deems that after the end of capitalism， people achieve freedom and can make best of their creativity. It becomes much more significant that human make use of their intelligence from practice to create a better world. This difference can be regard as different altitudes between optimism and pessimism. （Cosma， 2010）To sum up， Fukuyama and Wallerstein raise their points from idealism and materialism respectively， Fukuyama thinks history ends in capitalism but Wallerstein thinks capitalist history will end.

Conclusion

Fukuyama created a controversial notion of “the end of history”. His views root in Hegelian idealism and develop from Kojeves explaination on Hegel. The main thought is that liberal democracy has been tested the perfect form for human society， none of any other political forms can replace liberal democracy， so the history ends in liberal democracy. Economy and natural science development are the basic forces in driving history tendency. Specifically， development in nature science brings about new technologies that change the mode of production， resulting into a more productive and a more similar economy system. Then， similar ideology and political system will be established due to close economical connection in the world. Whats more， Fukuyama states that Hegelian “stuggle for recognition” and Platos “thymos” play a more fundamental role in ending history. Because the relation between masters and slaves does not exist anymore， Fukuyama agrees Kojeves thinking that the world will ends in homogeneous and universal states. When the liberal democracy conquer the world， the last man in the world becomes one with no aspiration and no desire because liberal democracy have solve all the big questions， and there is no opposite voice in the world. Furthermore， Fukuyama illustrates the rationality of his theory by Strong State 1 and Strong State 2 happened in the history.endprint

However， there are also many competing ideas towards Fukuyama. Derrida criticizes Fukuyama by stating a series of problems in liberal democracy country. Through analyzing on the logic and methodology of Fukuyamas standpoint， Derrida also find that the theory lack grounds. Wallerstein， as a Marxist， builds a world system theory that predicts the end of capitalist history. People will achieve self-liberation and freedom after capitalism. In addition， Fukuyama himself has made some improvements on this theory. He gradually changes from historical philosophy field to political aspect to prove that liberal democracy is the end of history.

[Bibliography]

[1]Andrew. S（2007）， “Constructing a World Fit for Marxism： Utopia and Utopistics of Professor Wallerstein”， American Journal of Economics & Sociology， 2007， Vol.66 （5）， p.1033-1053.

[2]Augustine. L. P（1996），“History and nature：Fukuyama， Kojève， and Rousseau.”， Perspectives on Political Science， 1996， Vol.25p.133-142.

[3]Bertram. C& Chitty. A（1994）， “Has history ended：Fukuyama， Marx， modernity”， Aldershot ： Avebury.

[4]Brown. A（2011）， “Reform， Coup and Collapse： The End of the Soviet State”， BBC History.http：//www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/soviet_end_01.shtml.

[5]Burrell. D（1991）， “Hegel and his dialectic： A Philosophy of History”， Age-of-the-sage，http：//www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/hegel_philosophy_history.html.

（作者單位： 山东大学，山东 济南 250000）endprint