Fukuyama's "final conclusion of history" is much better than his teacher's so-called "clash of civilizations". The main conflict in the world has always been the conflict between people and specialized systems, not the conflict between cultures.

The sad thing about Fukuyama is that it is called "the end of history" when the global productivity is developing at a high speed.

Political system and historical view are both derivatives of relations of production.

As for some people who say that Fukuyama and Marx come down in one continuous line, I find it ridiculous. There are only a few sets of classical philosophy, and homology should not be too common.

But a man who doesn't even respect the productive forces to determine the relations of production is not talking about Marx.

In 2000, most people in the world did not have enough to eat and clothes to keep warm.

If the political system really ends at this time, there will be no "China's 654.38+03 billion people living like Americans".

Facts show that the system in developed countries is completely incompatible with the well-off life enjoyed by 20% people in the world.

In Asia, Africa and Latin America, there are still 70% people waiting to live the life of Europeans, Americans and Japanese.

If democracy is afraid of a roughly equivalent standard of living, who is qualified to declare that "democracy has won"? I want to emphasize in particular that I believe that democracy is the hope of mankind, but it is by no means an election in the West.

True democracy is competition, not voting through the results of exams.