You do not know how could FUKUYAMA made the United States of America believes in MARX after collapse of Soviet Union, the event which linstructed failure of Marxism / Leninism theory. A philosophical question of course. Traditionally after Renaissance, Western countries used to practice in guidance of secular separation between religion and state, a development primarily based on scientific findings to conduct life styles and politics as well. What means that the majority of political practices of the West and United States in particular, apply what scientific research harvests in various fields, no speculations. FUKUYAMA is one example, who shuffled dialectics between HEGEL and MARX. His conclusions in this concern were the cresset of American foreign policy since nineties of the last century, especially with President Bush, father and son. In our view, Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization, was established pursuant to FUKUYAMA's arguments against Islam from the perspective of Marxist dialectic. Invasion of Iraq was instituted according to his Utopian claim. Details are worthy of a book of his books, but our instance is only a brief.

First: Definition of FUKUYAMA:

    According to the appendix to his article "The End of History": "FRANCIS FUKUYAMA was acting "Deputy Director of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff", and an analyst at the RAND Corporation. This article is based on a lecture conducted at University of Chicago ........ opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the point of view of the RAND Corporation or any other agency of the U.S. government".

    His article was published in 1989. Well known is the fact that each Department in USA has a planning advisory board of scientists in the field, such as the administration which FUKUYAMA took over position of Deputy Director. No doubt, it is an influential position in the international politics, in addition to his works and weight as a researcher. Any U.S. President also has a consultative board in the White House of scientists in all disciplines, our recognized scientist Dr. AHMED ZEWAIL (Nobel Prize in Chemistry), is a member of the Advisory Board of the President in natural sciences. From here, we figure out the importance of science in conduct of people life, and realize the political weight of Fukuyama's essay on the level of international politics.

Second: What this means "End of history"?

    Here, we are dealing with two articles, first is "END OF HISTORY", second "END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN", both are dashed on our blog "Misconceptions". After criticisms of his first article, FUKUYAMA in the second article, which is the introduction to his book entitled same, explained to people what he meant by "end of history": < And yet what I suggested had come to an end was not the occurrence of events, even large and grave events, but HISTORY: that is, history understood as a single, coherent, evolutionary process, when taking into account the experience of all peoples in all times >.

    The article focused on the historical development after collapse of Soviet Union and the theory of Marxism / Leninism or communism, an event which inaugurated triumph of Western liberal democratic capitalism. Did not mean the end of history at this event, fall of communism, but that history "will" be eventually quenched when that system or theory based on liberal democratic capitalism prevails allover the world. In multiple instances, he distinguishes between "ECONOMIC LIBERALISM", that is free-market-based economic life, and "DEMOCRATIC LIBERALISM" encompassing free elections, equality, freedom in the Western sense, and all secular landmarks. The first is an economic system while the second is a political one, the governmental design. He adds, does one of them lead to the other or not? In other words, the fall of communism means the triumph of liberalism (economical and political), therefore proving that the latter will always prevail and dominate the world to mark the end of history, ending world wars and conflicts, leading to disappearance of contradictions, theoretical or practical. In another statement he said: < That there would be no further progress in the development of underlying principles and institutions, because all of the really big questions had been settled >. In some detail after KOJEVE: < Universal Homogeneous State, all prior contradictions are resolved and all human needs are satisfied. There is no struggle or conflict over "large" issues, and consequently no need of generals or statesmen, what remains is primarily economic activity >. ("Universal Homogeneous State" is a term after "KOJEVE", a Hegelian theorist and exemplary of FUKUYAMA. He agrees with KOJEVE in all respects and follows, according to which his work about end of history was based.)

    Hardly you can find any difference between this utopia and Marxist utopia in "Marxist Communism", with respect to main headlines in the dream. The point is that in his insight there is an insisting line under economic activity, more Marxist than MARX himself.

FUKUYAMA analysis is based on the arguments of the great philosopher "HEGEL" which is considered father of modern dialectical philosophy. HEGEL is known to be difficult to read his philosophy in his native German language, that is why most interested thinkers rely on translations with loss of some conceptual or deviation from. Our knight alleges himself one of the supporters and followers of HEGEL, but also one of his theorists as critics claim. HEGEL's philosophical idea about ​​the end of history was formulated after triumph of the French and American revolutions as it was the beginning of nineteenth century. It is the prediction that end of history will be dictated by adoption of the rules and principles put forward by these two revolutions, liberal in its entirety. It did not mean that the historical course is sealed out at this event. His claim to end of history, after the triumph of liberalism, implicates that there is no undisputed anymore, based on in-depth analyses of the driving factors of history. Moreover, he considered those rules and principles a model which is unmatched or combated. Our knight revives this claim after the fall of the ideology of communism, the announcement of triumph of liberalism, which has no yet a challenger on both the political and intellectual scales.

    The same principle was picked up before by MARX after HEGEL. The former alleges that the principle of inevitable determinism of history will eventually lead to the victory of the proletariat to dominate the world demolishing any trace of capitalism, then there would be a world free of conflicts, "Classes" and contradictions, the end of human pain, may be end of history as well. MARX came with communism to form a defiant biggest enemy to HEGEL's argument and thoughts of the French and American revolutions, or liberalism as a whole. Then it was the Cold War, a war of ideas, practices, and infrastructure (such as intelligence). That war ceased to action by end of the eighties of the twentieth century when GORBACHEV launched his "Perestroika", inaugurating a happy end for Western liberalism in FUKUYAMA's view.

    We are not convinced here that HEGEL might also acknowledge, like MARX and FUKUYAMA, the disappearance of contradictions, conflicts and disputes by the end of history, but the content and in between lines of concepts inspired so. In chronological detail, it seems that the contradictions spotted by HEGEL in his era are different from those monitored by MARX and FUKUYAMA in their analyses. If quality is differed, I do not think in that both conform to the same method of resolution, what leads to a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Third: Relationship between thought and reality:

    The main concern of HEGEL in his philosophy is thought and consciousness, regardless of its application or what reading of reality is. On the other hand, the whole philosophy of MARX is materialistic "Dialectical Materialism", that history is made by industrial, economic and social developments, materialistic development. For HEGEL, history emerges primarily in consciousness, indifferent to what applies or exists thereafter, while the inevitable determinism of history with MARX is materialistic derived from and based on the factual. That is the marginal difference between their philosophies, noted everywhere.

    At this point, we are interested in the religious terms. HEGEL is considered devout or so to say theologian, so long as thought with him is the beginning of development of history and formulation of human life. In other words, thought is the determinism of the factual path, in form and content. MARX traces the opposite path, religion is the opium of people, and that reality precedes thought, reflected upon and affects and even formulates it, as well determines the course of history, all together. The motive of history is the factual, there is no consideration of religious beliefs, in consciousness or hearts or minds. Contrary to the nature of events, both believe in the principle of "inevitable determinism of history", a path of history that is perceived and intended by human beings, that history is directed by thought with HEGEL, but materialistic development with MARX.

According to this perspective, our knight complies with HEGEL, and insists on consciousness because he focuses on the international politics, that is brain made or washed, his specialty research and practice, which invited him to write these articles. Consciousness as it includes culture, ideology and philosophy, even people's consumer instincts. It is a corner stone in his analysis of liberal capitalism and its future, which will assign the end of history, so far premature, a long career as he depicts in his words.

    While in his analysis tries to emphasise evidences for a HEGEL follower, starting with consciousness or thought, so he can control policy which is in the brain, at the same time he provokes religion hostility, like MARX, far distanced from devout HEGEL, more precisely tipped over him, what actually MARX did. Such a work is not as constitutional in any secular society regarding political implementation, as much as it is freedom of pen.