Resumo de El Final De La Historia Y El Último Hombre (the End Of History And The Last Man)

I remember it very well, it was in the summer of 1989, when Francis
Fukuyama, a US professor of Japanese extraction, rather unknown until
then, published in "The National Interest" his celebrated article: "The
End of History?". As is well known, in that article of 15 pages that
gave rise to a more extensive book in 1992 of similar title, "The End
of History and the Last Man", he sought to put forward that, as
demonstrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, non-democratic and
anti-liberal ideologies, have died a definitive death or at least made
definitive steps towards their end, so that humanity is left only to
contemplate its evolution towards a future convergent on economics and
politics which exist only in a world of democratic states aligned
solely by market economy.

Although Professor Fukuyama produced his article with an exquisitely
respectful and educated language, he provoked more rebuttal and more
intellectual wrath with it than did Hitler with "Mein Kampf". All those
close by or further afield who could of considered him a thinker, a
philosopher or an intellectual of the type to come, felt the imperious
necessity to fire a direct assault against the father of the End of
History with a battery of contempt, the lightest of it labelling him as
a "fascist bureaucrat", "capitalist lackey" or "defective". I remember,
for example, the indignant invectives enunciated by two smart
late-Marxists, Josep Fontana: "After the End of History" (1992) and
Perry Anderson: "The Ends of History" (1996). How they at that time
enjoyed a high standing among the Spanish academics. Then one could
read almost for the first time the alerts against the danger of the so
called unique thought. So many years of careful study of the Marxian
universe were not to be liquidated with a stroke of the pen, not that
easily, it had to loop the loop, as it did so shamelessly and with
rage, in relation to which there are to be read reflections of such
pig-headed poignancy as those of Jorge Altamira: "Unlike Fukuyama, we,
the Socialists, do not find it necessary to review our
prognostications. From long before the dissolution of the USSR, we
postulated that the inevitable collapse of bureaucratic regimes would
become a mere episode of the process of capitalist decomposition".
Still flatter were the conclusions of the celebrated group "History
under Debate" that after two years of arduous work, showing a sovereign
effort of intellectual depth, concluded that the old definition of
history as "the science of man in time" should be replaced by the much
more correct: "history is the school of men and women in time and in
the medium in which they find themselves". All a cloying, conformist,
conservative effort destined to please the minions without saying
absolutely anything. Nevertheless, Fukuyama did no more then than to
state a reality, all that which proves the liberal democracy, ends
preferring it against any other political regime, be it Islamic
theocracy, bland Asian authoritarianism or the neo-Bolshevism of
Castro. Thinking in this way is not to be fascist, rather to be party
to a certain insomnia or communitarianism as it likes to be called now,
where the person must be valued by his profits and the degree of
confidence that it provides, and not by his inherited status or the
rôle that is assigned to him by tyranny. In short, recently Fukuyama,
persistent in his pedagogy of freedom, has given us from his privileged
watchtower of the Johns Hopkins, new reflections poured out in book
form: "State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century"
(2004). A work that, as was to be hoped, is provoking as much polemic
as the previous one. I guess it is only to be expected that, the
apostles with subventions for sterile culture production, the
respectful together with the intolerant, the gurus of Basque DNA, the
prophets of the most miserable theocracy, will have ample reason to
worry, examplees of those who have already been seen under the expanse
of his disgraceful and very interesting ideology.

Resumos Relacionados