Does History "stop", "start", and "accelerate"?
- Technically speaking, the 31st of December 2000 was the end of the twentieth century
- Certain events could have, at any point, contradicted the idea of a unilateral world organisation
- The structural evolutions that occurred between the Roman Empire and 1600 in Europe are maybe as strong as those between 1700 and today
The fall of the Berlin wall symbolized the end of communism, and the victory of liberal democracy. The suddenness, with which the soviet empire collapsed without any resistance, reinforced the idea that democracy was going to triumph all over the globe. In the controversial article "The End of History", Fukuyama introduced his thesis that all the societies were moving toward peace, prosperity and freedom, and that democracy was unanimously going to be considered the most reliable system, especially after the manifestation of what both fascism and Stalinism were capable of. He opined that: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". It was thus predicted that except for some regional issues, the world was going to remain indefinitely a liberal democratic system with capitalism, and the entire world would live under an international order, where human rights would be stronger than the use of force, and would respect the people's will. Following the Hegelian definition of History, which argues that "Human History must be seen not only as a succession of accomplishments, but more importantly as a succession of different form of consciousness", Fukuyama wrote about "the possibility that History might be at an end?. It is indeed debatable if history can said to be continuing in the absence of changes.