In “The End of History?”, by Francis Fukuyama he raises the position that nationalism and communism were two major consequences of the inability to establish a liberal democracy. As the USSR collapsed in 1992, researches have begun to question if the two main factors, nationalism and communism, led to the fall of this empire. Throughout my analysis, I will approach the effects of communism and nationalism on the collapse of the soviet union, by comparing and contrasting these points to Fukuyamas claim. These concepts will support my case that, a communist society will eventually fail and a liberal democracy will be the final form of government.
Francis Fukuyama argued that a liberal democracy is the final form of human government. In, his article, to prove that the end of …show more content…
Prior to the collapse of the USSR, it was a communist society that had problems connecting to its national identity. Bessinger argues that the “collapse of communism was not a series of isolated, individual national stories of resistance but a set of interrelated streams of activity in which activity in one setting significantly influenced activity in different settings, and that national sovereignty swept through this period.” One point, that Bessinger makes to support his argument is nationalism played a critical part in organizing the way in which the collapse of communism unfolded. Second, nationalist mobilization during this period was not a progression of nationalist stories. His third point, demonstrates that nationalist mobilization did not mirror a pre-existing rationale of organization, structures, and
Francis Fukuyama argued that a liberal democracy is the final form of human government. In, his article, to prove that the end of …show more content…
Prior to the collapse of the USSR, it was a communist society that had problems connecting to its national identity. Bessinger argues that the “collapse of communism was not a series of isolated, individual national stories of resistance but a set of interrelated streams of activity in which activity in one setting significantly influenced activity in different settings, and that national sovereignty swept through this period.” One point, that Bessinger makes to support his argument is nationalism played a critical part in organizing the way in which the collapse of communism unfolded. Second, nationalist mobilization during this period was not a progression of nationalist stories. His third point, demonstrates that nationalist mobilization did not mirror a pre-existing rationale of organization, structures, and