Communism And The End Of History

Communist rule was confined to the Soviet Union until the end of World War II.

In being so, liberalism possesses both economic and political components. Economic liberalism argues that, increasing economic interdependence would lead to a more peaceful international realm. Political liberalism bases itself on the belief that ‘A just world order assumes the establishment of republics ’. Thus, political liberalism as practiced by the United States during Cold War becomes a critical proponent of democracy promotion by noting that overlapping national interests will allow for a tamer international environment, engendering the notion that democracies do not engage in wars. Although democracy as interpreted by liberal theory on its own does not lead to free market, it may create the necessary infrastructure for such an event to occur. The promotion of democracy, to a great extent, increases economic interdependence through the alignment of core national values and therefore decreasing the probability of hegemony between the states. However, The notion of liberalism was undermined in the literature of the United States foreign policy after the Cold War. Even though the states were economically interdependent during the Cold War yet they engaged in rivalry for resources to the extent that if, assumingly, the “World Trade Organization” came to be perceived as a corrupt institution,

Throughout his paper, Doyle discusses the “liberalism will bring peace” rule as if it is already proven and true despite historical evidence, and can be used to predict an outcome for the future. This type of discussion is for a law and not a hypothesis. Doyle also seems to claim that the political nature of the individual state will solely determine its policies and actions. He discredits the Realist point of view and does not dabble with the possibility that the anarchical system of the world could contribute to states actions as well.

Concluding this assessment of information, Communism has made a catastrophic effect upon every aspect of Western Civilization. In so many ways could eventually take out the current United States government. But evidently would fail because people will never vote for it. It would cause violence just as there was in the 19th century with Karl Marx. I ultimately believe there may not be a chance Communism could take over and change this

As an example the author describes the economical changes in Asia. Fukuyama believes that to ascribe those changes only to the needs and ideas of maximum benefice to everyone is short-sided and that values and moral, such as “work-ethic” or “frugality” are essential to understand why changes happen, otherwise we would be ignoring the “role of ideas” (Fukuyama, End of History) in these events. Fukuyama points out for instance that “Economical Liberalism” does not create “Liberal Politics”, because both concepts are the result of separate and prior “conciousness” (Fukuyama, End of History). Fukuyama quest for predicting the “End of History” goes on to determine the greatest challenges to the “Western Liberal Democracy”, Fascism and

In his article, ‘The Worldwide Liberal Revolution’ he emphasizes on liberalization, democracy, and communism, authoritarian and totalitarian governments. He adds that there has been a much quieter revolution occurring over the past twenty or thirty odd years. This may be seen in the exceptional economic growth in East Asia since World War II.

Communism played a major role shaping the 20th century, both for the East and the United States. Its impact can be seen in the US from 1919 to the 1990s and even today. The spread of Communist ideals in the East meant the beginning of the socialist state and mass industrialization. Its effect on the US was much different. The United States people, heavily diversified of all races, religions, and financial statuses, became extremely jingoistic as a result of competition with the USSR. This nationalism became unhealthy as citizens began determining what was “un-American.” The Communist Party USA was not successful in their primary objective of spreading communism to the US. What they did achieve however was hugely important. They showed that citizens of the United States could be scared out of their own freedom. That fear would lead them to give up “liberty and justice for all”. Still a highly misunderstood idea, it is important for citizens of the United States to understand what communism is and what impact the CPUSA and other communist organizations had on the country.

Communism is a system of social organisation which formerly consumed almost a third of countries in the entire world, having originated in Russia. The first official communist state was founded during the Russian revolutions in 1917, due to the inaugural communist political party ‘Bolsheviks’ gaining primal power. Afterwards, the influence of communism spread to other countries with the likes of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and East Germany to name a few. These countries that were governed on communist principles were known as the ‘Eastern Bloc’. Even countries in Asia were persuaded into the theoretically human equality system such as China, Laos and Vietnam. Communism was gathering strength to strength every year in the mid 20th century, but eventually its impact was wiped off in the late 20th century when the Berlin War was knocked down in 1989, ending the barrier between the Eastern and Western blocs. Communism arguably was the most influential social experiment in history, but also the most flawed and its failure to change the world permanently will always remain significant in history.

Communist had a long history during the 20th century, and communism was very influential. Almost all of Asia and East Europe became Communist. From the start of the theory then many civil wars in Russia affected the whole world. Communist defined the idea of itself in many different ways, it helps many nations came together formed a party fought wars, but it also made many countries became really poor, and the economy in most of the countries got pushed back about 10 years. Communism is an economic and political system that sought to create an egalitarian society; it collapsed because of personal interest and government’s corruption.

Everyone would like to live in a perfect society, and in Germany, Karl Marx set out to do just that by creating the government system known as Communism. Though, this system has failed in many countries all over the world because of many significant flaws in the very foundation of the system. Some of the most feared probabilities in society that Communism was created to eliminate still prevailed and were at the heart of the system’s downfall. If the system was infallible, why were so many of its principles created out of the fear of rebellion? The living conditions of the people were unbearable and would lead to nothing but rebellion. The whole system was full of corruption and had no moral standards. Communism has failed in many countries

The common idea linking these two articles is Fukuyama theory - end of the world, that describes the process which started after the collapse of the Soviet Union. More and more countries around the world turned to the democratic system of government and eventually, the liberal democratic model will rule the world. The first article is talking about how the radical Islam tries to challenge the liberal democratic values but with not success, and the second article discuss the reasons

To begin with Francis Fukuyama's, provocative thesis, that after the fall of communism in Europe and the withering of the grand ideological contests, history too has ended. In his "end of history" theory, he maintained that the western liberal democracy had become the `final form of human government'. The fact is that though not all theorists have this kind of a faith in liberal democracy, and believe that it's not the only feasible form of democracy, they are in a minority. The theoretical circles and the popular discourse have been dominated by "liberal democracy."

Since the post-World War 1 period, Liberalism has been actively advanced by Western (or 'first-world') states as a desirable system of political theory. According to Dunne (in Baylis & Smith 2001, pp. 163), the basis for its appeal stems from the fact that Liberalism is viewed as inherently 'optimistic', making it a natural counter-theory to the Realist theories advanced by practitioners of realpolitik in the past (feudalism, dictatorships etc.). What makes Liberalism 'optimistic' in a sense is that, as an ideology, it is fundamentally anchored around the liberty of the individual, and furthermore, strives for global peace. Considering the rampant destruction and bloodshed experienced by many of the states involved in both the World Wars,

Francis Fukuyama; political scientist, economist, and author, in his article “The End of History?” discusses he rise and fall of major ideologies such as absolutism, fascism and communism, and suggests that human history should be viewed in terms of a battle of ideologies which has reached its end in the universalization of Western liberal democracy. Fukuyama concludes that the idea of Western liberal democracy has triumphed in the world through a variety of different ways and is a thriving piece of world order today. However, there are certain flaws to his argument including a US- centric view on the events of the twentieth century.

In conclusion, however, I find that it is not a meaningful argument to examine if ‘the end of history’ has indeed taken place, simply because Francis Fukuyama has set the basis of his theory too wide. People will naturally gravitate towards having more options in their lives, be it socially, economically or in this case, politically. This tendency would thus make Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ irrefutable. The more pertinent question to explore would be how the end goal of liberal democracy can be properly managed, with it being based on the twin principles of liberty and equality. At this end point of history as we know it, trade-offs have to be made between the two- equality cannot be achieved without the actions of a state controlling liberty, while liberty cannot be attained fully without social inequality. The end of history has dawned, where there would be no further meaningful challenge to liberal democracy, but a new battle awaits with the conundrum of balance between liberty and equality in liberal