The discussion of “the end of history” by FrancisnFukuyama in The National Interest (Summer 1989)nhas led to comment by numerous publicists. Among othersnCharies Krauthammer, George Will, Richard Bernstein,nand a feature writer for Time have evaluated Fukuyama’snhypothetical arguments that the wodd may be movingntoward a democratic capitalist final age: a world without warnand therefore without serious politics, in which boredom,nnot strife, will be the major human problem.nIn Fukuyama’s defense it should be noted that he doesnnot advocate that steps be taken to turn utopia into reality;nnor does he express unqualified enthusiasm for what hentreats as a merely possible future. However, he does makenthe mistake of identifying his vision with the philosophernHegel, who, as it happened, supported nation-states as annantidemocratic constitutionalist. Hegel devoted one of hisnlast tracts to attacking the Reform Bill then being considerednin England and finally enacted in 1832. The reconstructionnof the English electoral districts in the direction of proportionatendemocratic representation, Hegel maintained, wouldninvolve an ill-advised move toward popular government.nIronically, George Will, who seems to have learned hisnHegel from Fukuyama, praises the philosopher as a “goodnGerman,” that is, a democrat, but scoffs at his simplemindednfaith in the possibility of wodd government. Actually, Hegelnlooked forward to neither democracy nor world government.nThe Russian-French “Hegelian,” Alexandre Kojeve, alsonmentioned by Fukuyama, claimed to believe in both. Kojevenreinterpreted Hegel as the philosopher of “world reason”nwhose ideas pointed toward a world state. But Kojeve alsonPaul Gottfried is a professor of humanities at ElizabethtownnCollege in Pennsylvania.n16/CHRONICLESnQuis Judicabit?nby Paul Gottfriednnnbelieved that more than ideas would be necessary tonintroduce a cosmic order from which master-slave relationshipsnwould be forever abolished. He glorified the FrenchnRevolution, including the Reign of Terror. And whilenKojeve worked for the European Common Market as anninstrument of interstate cooperation, he also admired JosephnStalin, as a practitioner of the politics of world unity. Thisnunabashed Stalinophile, not Hegel, stressed the theme of anworld without politics that Fukuyama serves up (with somencapitalist modifications) in his essay.nOther pointed criticisms of the article have come forthnfrom discerning readers. For example, John Gray in NationalnReview (October 27, 1989) observes that the allegedndemocratic ascendancy in Eastern Europe to whichnFukuyama refers has little to do with democracy. What hasnhappened is the reappearance of national societies thatnforeign Communist domination had driven underground.nThe rhetoric of democracy is being used by some EasternnEuropeans and even more by Western journalists to describenthe frantic attempts made by nations to regain control ofntheir own destinies. Herbert London in The London Lettern(July/August 1989) sees Fukuyama’s dream as the last of anlong series of interesting but empty visions. It shares a familynresemblance to other nonstarters like Woodrow Wilson’sn”ineluctable worldwide victory for democracy” and thenappeal by Kant to a worldwide republic of rational beingsnwho would outlaw war. London rightly notes that visionarynreformers have long been predicting the end of history whilenidentifying that end with the triumph of their own ideas.nThough Fukuyama is more clever about packaging hisnvision, he, too, is bestowing inevitability on what is anpersonal dream.nHe is also presenting the world view of at least some ofn