Funnily enough, I was reading Fukuyama only this morning. One of the things that's interesting about his thesis is that it is the end of History AND the Last Man. Nietzsche rather than Marx as the enemy of Human Security/ satiety, i.e. it fits with the idea that Jon Savage/ Greil Marcus were developing around the same time about punk and the 'politics of boredom'.
But Fukuyama's revisiting of Hegel was only an ideological expression of Deleuze-Guattari's re-situating of Hegelian Progressivism. Yes, Deleuze-Guattari say, there is, after all, a 'universal history', but it is not a linear progression. Capitalism is what is universal about history in that it is the negative of any PARTICULAR social formation. Unlike other social systems which are defined by totems and taboos, capital is defined only by its teleology: the propagation of capital. Yes, capitalism can perfectly well coincide with all kinds of 'archaic' social codes - there can be an agrarian capitalist society, a futurist capitalist society, an agrarian-futurist society - no problem. That is what makes capitalism so robust - it requires only that the social field is sufficiently decoded for it to implant itself.
At the same time, what people mistake for the 'Progress' of Humanity is in reality capital's tendency towards increased decoding. Religious authority, moral injunctions posing as absolute, the integrity of the human organism, all of these tend to fall away as capital does its work.
It is in this sense that capital is a devouring Thing - a 'tungsten carbide stomach' as Lyotard memorably puts it. It is not that capital ACTUALLY, empirically destroys every pre-existing aspect of the social system it parasitizes; it is that it has no particular need for any of them, only for an empty 'social as such'. Therefore, there is nothing that Capital can't IN PRINCIPLE consume.