Does the history end ?

>>319529

I never actually heard his argument but I always assumed not, since people are still writing it.

>>319529
No and this man is a hack.

Jean Baudrillard was right - history becomes its own dustbin. The world becomes its own dustbin.

File: marxy marx.jpg (30KB, 320x485px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 320x485px

>>319529
Yes, with the end of class conflict.

>>319529
Everything with relative importance in the world will and is already being documented.
Historical work about times beyond the late 20th century will simply be a matter of compiling information and deciding which parts are important.

File: 155641968.jpg (115KB, 397x600px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 397x600px

no

>>319529
I think 9/11 showed that he was wrong. The world is destabilizing and less democratic.

>>319626
Who is this man?

>>319948
That dude who is Walter's brother-in-law in Breaking Bad.

>>319529
No and Fukuyama already said he was wrong so I have no idea why people still take him seriously.

>>319591

Go to bed, Engels.

>>319529
>>319975
Not only that, IIRC he was posing a question, not making a statement.
A question perfectly relevant to the context of the time, btw.

>>319948
Hitler's papa, Oswald Spengler.

>>319529
not until time or the things that can record it does.

Yes.

History ends.

>>321196

When?

>>321210

I guess end is the wrong word, but we have very litte information of the civilisations from 10k BC or earlier.

>>319529

It "ends" in the way as, there is no big ideology/nation fights anymore with globalization, everyone accepting capitalism and its highly organized rules (international treaties...)

So next wars will be some terrorist shit for ethnic claims, which can be torn with a strong policy

>>321210
When we stop writing about it.

>>319560
He basically admitted he was wrong, and has since tried to distance himself from neoconservatism.

>>319529
>At the end of history, it is not necessary that all societies become successful liberal societies, merely that they end their ideological pretensions of representing different and higher forms of human society.

He's not really saying nothing will happen anymore, but merely that there won't be wars and conflicts on a global scale anymore like this (he's also not saying that it will be completely gone, just that it won't be as common as it is nowadays) because we understand the difference of ideologies.

Right now? Highly unlikely, with the rise of ISIS among other forms of religious radicals, and the racial tension in both Europe among migrants and the US amid police brutality/BLM. However, I believe after all of this is resolved there may be a time where we reach what Fukuyama saw as "end of history". I have hope in humanity.