Origins and Hubris

The End of Their History

Morning Comrades.

Monday’s dispatch had me thinking on all the different root causes for the inhumane realities that are being imposed on us and whilst I would love to be able to offer a psychological assessment to the evil that so many of our self-elected so-called leaders present, I am neither a psychologist nor am I read into enough in this field to do so and all I have to offer are my historical and sometimes philosophical musings. With that, I wanted to offer an insight to what I can consider both a massively contributing cause and representation of neoliberalism and the ensuing death of it, a timeline that we are now in.

Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man (1992) emerged in the aftermath of the Cold War, offering a provocative thesis: liberal democracy and market capitalism represent the culmination of humanity's sociopolitical evolution. Drawing from Hegelian philosophy and Alexandre Kojève’s interpretation of it, Fukuyama contends that history—understood as the ideological struggle to determine the optimal form of human governance—has reached its endpoint. He argues that while political and economic challenges may persist, no viable alternative to liberal democracy exists on a global scale. This triumph, he claims, resolves the contradictions of earlier political systems by fulfilling both humanity's material and psychological needs.

Despite acknowledging the "incompleteness" of liberal democracy and its vulnerability to nihilism or consumerism, Fukuyama maintains that no rival ideology—be it socialism, fascism, or authoritarianism—can challenge its dominance.

Since its release, The End of History and the Last Man has profoundly shaped the ideological framework underpinning the neoliberal, U.S.-led global order. Fukuyama’s thesis was eagerly embraced by policymakers and intellectuals, particularly during the 1990s, as it reinforced the triumphalist narrative of Western liberal democracy following the Cold War. By framing liberal democracy and market capitalism as the "natural" endpoints of history, Fukuyama provided intellectual justification for aggressive neoliberal policies, including deregulation, privatization, and the globalization of capital. This ideological outlook undergirded U.S. foreign policy in its promotion of liberal democracy abroad, often through interventionist means, as seen in NATO’s expansion, the Iraq War, and efforts to liberalize post-Soviet economies. Fukuyama's narrative also dovetailed with the rise of the Washington Consensus, which imposed neoliberal economic orthodoxy on developing nations, often exacerbating inequality and social unrest. The book’s implicit endorsement of U.S. hegemony framed any challenge—whether from socialist movements, authoritarian states, or environmentalist critiques—as regressive and illegitimate, reinforcing a global structure that privileges capital over human needs. By perpetuating the belief that no systemic alternative exists, Fukuyama's work has contributed to the persistence of a global order marked by economic inequality, militarism, and ecological degradation, even as these contradictions grow increasingly unmanageable.

For one, I would semi-sarcastically posit the next decades as an End to Their History and thus, let’s get into rebuking a massive part of their foundation.