Is this book legit?

The threads on this always ignore the fact that it was written decades ago, that he admitted he was in error, that he wrote a massive two volume mea culpa called Political Order and Political Decay which follows the Why Nations Fail model of institutions which are inclusive and exclusive as well as institutional decay as a pivot point. Furthermore the book is misrepresented at baseline.

soundcloud.com/user-5799528/francis-fukuyama-end-of-history-revisited here is fukuyama sort of wearily addressing points he addressed 9 years ago on the 20th anniversary.

Between this guy and Spengler, it really makes me think nobody knows what they're talking about when they try to make these grand sweeping predictions about the future and patterns in societal behavior

The guy who wrote romance of the three kingdoms knew that empires wax and wane.

Well we already struggle with predicting the result the next-year election so it's not really a surprise.

>The guy who wrote romance of the three kingdoms knew that empires wax and wane.
Yeah but even The Bible talks about this.

I've basically gone full circle from the bible to philosophy back to the bible. Ecclesiastes and Proverbs basically answer all of these questions

>All empires rise and fall
>all attempts at material greatness is pointless vanity
>all attempts at human wisdom is pointless vanity
>everything returns to dust
>ignore the vain masses, follow the biblical rules and have a good life with your family

Yeah basically

Who now reads Spergler? or Fukuyama for that matter

>ignore the fact that
Are We talking about this book or about anything and everything the author ever wrote? It surely honors him that he admitted to his brainfart and tried to correct It and doubtlessly we can talk about his successive works. But the fact that this book, on his own, of which We're talking about is brainlet tier and was so even at the time of It's publishing.
>Isn't the book more about how western styled democracy is the end of political progression?
Exactly, and it implied the usual "movement ever forward" positivist brainlets are so fond of.
The hard fact of the matter is that western democracy was obsoleted even from before the book was written, and now It's nothing more than a relic of a "better" past in which facebook didn't tell everything about what you search on the internet to unelected bureaucrats.

i dont think we should diminish this wisdom, and its pretty close to fukuyama's current thesis.

institutions decay. decadent institutions create decadent polities. decadent polities collapse. Most interesting part of his current book is his assessment of the US forest service from the ideals of Teddy Roosevelt to the underfunded bungling.

Im just saying that when its discussed it isnt ever brought up that the author himself has backstepped, mostly due to horror at neocon and neoliberal policies throughout the iraq war.

>Is a pseudo religion that sees the mind and the world as one and the same legit
No

>Most interesting part of his current book is his assessment of the US forest service from the ideals of Teddy Roosevelt to the underfunded bungling.
I haven't read his book, what does he say about this?

>It may be surprising to learn, then, that the Forest Service is today regarded by many observers as a highly dysfunctional bureaucracy performing an outmoded mission with the wrong tools. Although it is still staffed by professional foresters, many of whom are highly dedicated to the agency’s mission, it has lost a great deal of the autonomy it won under Pinchot. It operates under multiple and often contradictory mandates from Congress and the courts that cannot be simultaneously fulfilled, and in the process ends up costing taxpayers a huge amount of money. The service’s internal decision-making system is often gridlocked, and the high degree of staff morale and cohesion that Pinchot worked so hard to foster has been lost. The situation is sufficiently bad that entire books have been written arguing that the Forest Service ought to be abolished altogether.1 No political institution lasts forever, and the current condition of the Forest Service tells us a great deal about the forces that work to undermine high-quality government.

The small, cohesive agency created by Pinchot and celebrated by Herbert Kaufman in The Forest Ranger slowly evolved into a large, balkanized one. It became subject to many of the maladies affecting government agencies more generally: bureaucrats came to be more interested in protecting their budgets and jobs than in the efficient performance of their mandates. And they clung to old mandates even when both science and the society around them were changing. Like Pinchot, many reached out to interest groups to protect their autonomy, but without a single, coherent mandate, they ultimately could not avoid recolonization by their clients.

(its clients being timber and resource companies and its obsession with firefighting, which has only allowed dead wood to accumulate which causes much worse fires)

>Im just saying that when its discussed it isnt ever brought up that the author himself has backstepped
Yes and It's never discussed Because We're talking about the book not about everything the author did.
>became subject to many of the maladies affecting government agencies more generally: bureaucrats came to be more interested in protecting their budgets and jobs than in the efficient performance of their mandates. And they clung to old mandates even when both science and the society around them were changing
Now This is at least moderately based since he correctly diagnosed the undoing of every bureaocracy ever.

fukuyama distanced himself from it

Fukuyama himself has admitted that he was wrong. Read Krauthammer's The Unipolar Moment, written in 1990, for a more accurate prediction.

>First, it has been assumed that the old bipolar world would beget a multipolar world with power dispersed to new centers in Japan, Germany (and/or "Europe"), China and a diminished Soviet Union/Russia. Second, that the domestic American consensus for an internationalist foreign policy, a consensus radically weakened by the experience in Vietnam, would substantially be restored now that policies and debates inspired by "an inordinate fear of communism" could be safely retired. Third, that in the new post-Soviet strategic environment the threat of war would be dramatically diminished.
>
>All three of these assumptions are mistaken. The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies. Second, the internationalist consensus is under renewed assault. The assault this time comes not only from the usual pockets of post-Vietnam liberal isolationism (e.g., the churches) but from a resurgence of 1930s-style conservative isolationism. And third, the emergence of a new strategic environment, marked by the rise of small aggressive states armed with weapons of mass destruction and possessing the means to deliver them (what might be called Weapon States), makes the coming decades a time of heightened, not diminished, threat of war.

Spengler predicted all 3 lmao in like 1918

This is just a popularized form of what Kojeve was teaching in the 30s, with less communism.

It's a good book for describing the long run in a Hegelian sense but its enthusiasm is a bit awkward for present-day applications

If you take Fukuyama's later work as an addendum then yes it's legit