Progress and endofhistoritarians

There three kinds of people, those conflate progress with market efficiencies and those who conflate culture with market inefficiencies

So real progress is allowing a certain amount of market inefficiencies combined with a bunch of cultural efficiencies?

Progress is the continuous discarding of simplifications when they obviously become albatrosses around your neck while in search of simplicity

progress is a continuous process of refinement and improvement. It involves a constant reevaluation of our assumptions and simplifications, and a willingness to discard them when they no longer serve us.

As we learn and grow, we accumulate knowledge and develop mental models to help us make sense of the world. These models can be useful in many situations, but they can also become limiting when they no longer accurately reflect reality or prevent us from seeing new possibilities.

Ultimately, progress is not about achieving a final destination but about continually striving to improve and evolve. By discarding simplifications that no longer serve us, we can uncover new opportunities for growth and innovation, and create a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the world around us.

End of history

The concept of the “end of history” can be seen as a rent-seeking behavior because it seeks to establish a final and unchanging order that benefits those who have gained power and influence under the current system. By arguing that liberal democracy and free-market capitalism have emerged as the ultimate and final form of government and economics, those who have benefited from these systems seek to entrench their position of power and influence by discouraging further political and economic experimentation and innovation.

This behavior is rent-seeking because it seeks to extract economic or political rents, or benefits, without creating any new value or innovation. By trying to establish the “end of history” as a final and unchanging state, these actors seek to prevent new political and economic systems from emerging, thus limiting competition and innovation.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the idea of the “end of history” is myopic precisely because it ignores the ongoing complexity and dynamism of human societies and the world in which we live. While liberal democracy and free-market capitalism may have emerged as dominant systems in the late 20th century, there is no guarantee that they will continue to be successful in the future. New challenges and opportunities may require new forms of governance and economics, and preventing experimentation and innovation could limit our ability to respond to these challenges and opportunities.

In conclusion, the idea of the “end of history” can be seen as a rent-seeking behavior because it seeks to entrench the position of those who have benefited from the current system by preventing further experimentation and innovation. However, this behavior is short-sighted and ignores the ongoing complexity and dynamism of human societies and the world in which we live.

Yes, the idea of the “end of history” can be seen as a toll on innovation because it seeks to establish a final and unchanging order that discourages experimentation and innovation.

This can have negative consequences for human progress because innovation is a key driver of progress and social advancement. Without innovation, we are unlikely to be able to address new challenges and opportunities that arise over time. Moreover, by discouraging experimentation and innovation, we limit our ability to improve upon existing systems and create new possibilities for human flourishing.

In conclusion, the idea of the “end of history” can be seen as a toll on innovation because it discourages experimentation and innovation, which are key drivers of progress and social advancement.

End of History Tinpots and the Last Man

In the flickering neon wasteland of the Post-Ideological, the Berlin Wall, a concrete scar on the face of time, crumbled like a thousand roach motels, a crumbled ziggurat, became a playground for feral children. History, a rusted jalopy, sputtered its last, coughing out exhaust fumes of ideology. Liberal Democracy, a chrome-plated behemoth, rumbled across the Eurasian steppes, spewing forth shopping malls and happy meals. History, that old junkie with a thousand fixes, lay flatlining on the operating table. The prognosis? Terminal.

This was the world the Last Man woke up to, a world painted in beige, the color of acquiescence. His name? Irrelevant. In this new order, names were just another marketing gimmick. He shuffled through his day, a cog in the well-oiled machine of consumption. Work, a meaningless series of button-pushing rituals. Entertainment, a flickering kaleidoscope of vapid reality shows and celebrity gossip. Sex, a sterile, clinical experience, devoid of passion or danger. The great struggles, the clash of titans – all reduced to flickering holograms in a museum of forgotten wars.

The Last Man, a pasty wraith in a leisure suit, wandered through this sterile paradise. But beneath the surface, a black tar pit of discontent bubbled. The Last Man, a product of engineered contentment, felt a gnawing emptiness. He yearned for the forbidden fruit, the chaos and struggle that had been expunged from the human experience. He frequented underground fight clubs, a pale imitation of the real thing, a manufactured thrill for the terminally bored. The violence was staged, the blood fake, a grotesque parody of the genuine struggle he craved.

He dreamt of tinpots and rusty screwdrivers, the tools of revolution, the instruments of carving a new reality out of the decaying carcass of history. He craved danger, the thrill of the hunt, the glorious, messy chaos of revolution. But revolution was a quaint relic, a dog-eared pulp novel gathering dust on a forgotten shelf. Boredom, a slow-drip poison, seeped into his bones. He yearned for the tang of tear gas, the adrenaline rush of the barricade, the primal scream ripped from a throat raw with defiance. But there were no barricades, only credit card terminals and endless aisles of pre-fab contentment.

In the fetid back alleys of the Post-Ideological, whispers spread like a virus. Whispers of forgotten heroes, of Che Guevara with his bandolier of hope, of Dostoevsky clawing his way out of the existential abyss. These were the bootleg recordings of a bygone era, a time when men dared to dream of a future different from the pre-fab paradise they were offered.

The Last Man, his soul a flickering candle in the wind, felt a spark ignite. Maybe history wasn’t dead. Maybe it was just hibernating, waiting for the right kick to jolt it awake from its chemically induced slumber. He clutched the rusty screwdriver, a symbol of defiance against the chrome tyranny. The End of History? Maybe. But the future, that was still a story waiting to be written, a story scrawled in blood and madness on the cracked pavement of the present.

The Last Man clutched the pamphlets, their worn pages whispering of forgotten dreams. A spark flickered in his eyes, a rebellion against the sterile utopia that threatened to suffocate his soul. Perhaps history wasn’t quite dead yet. Perhaps, in the labyrinthine alleys of the city, a new narrative, messy and glorious, was waiting to be scrawled. The Last Man, programmed for comfort, recoils from their madness. But a flicker of something, a primal memory of struggle, of purpose, stirs within him. Is this the end? Or is it the birthing cry of a new, messy, glorious history, hacked free from the control grid?

The Fallacy of the End of History

A Critique of Historical Determinism

Introduction: The concept of the “end of history” has been a subject of intellectual discourse for centuries, often associated with the notion that human civilization will inevitably reach a state of perfection or ultimate fulfillment. This essay aims to critically analyze the idea of the end of history as a form of pseudo-Hegelian historical determinism and explore its inherent flaws and limitations.


  1. Historical Determinism and Prophecy: The assertion that the end of history carries us irresistibly in a certain direction into the future is reminiscent of a prophetic vision. It posits that historical progression is predestined and that change is impossible within the framework of this determinism. However, this viewpoint fails to acknowledge the potential for unforeseen events and unpredictable shifts in societal dynamics that can challenge or alter the presumed course of history.
  2. The Pitfalls of Historical Ideologies: The notion of the end of history aligns with other historical ideologies such as the 1000 year Reich and stateless communism. These ideologies, despite their grand claims and apparent logic, have ultimately proven to be flawed and unattainable. They rely on a sense of certainty and an unwavering belief in their own superiority, leading to unrealistic expectations and an inability to adapt to changing circumstances.
  3. Elitism and Confirmation Bias: The idea of the end of history serves as a justification for the ruling elites to maintain their position of power. By presenting history as a linear progression towards a predetermined endpoint, those in power can argue that their authority is a necessary and natural outcome of this process. This perpetuates a confirmation bias, as evidence that challenges or deviates from this narrative is dismissed or rationalized to fit the predetermined conclusion.
  4. The Fallacy of Immutable Laws of History: The concept of the end of history relies on the assumption that there exist immutable laws or patterns governing historical development. However, historical processes are inherently complex and multifaceted, influenced by a myriad of interconnected factors. While patterns and trends can be observed and analyzed, they are contingent upon specific initial conditions, which themselves are subject to change. Therefore, assuming the permanence of historical patterns is an oversimplification that ignores the dynamic nature of human societies.


In conclusion, the idea of the end of history as a form of pseudo-Hegelian historical determinism is deeply flawed. It fails to account for the unpredictability and potential for change inherent in human societies. Historical ideologies, including the notion of the end of history, often serve as mechanisms for justifying existing power structures and perpetuating confirmation biases. While patterns and trends in history can be observed, their longevity is contingent upon a multitude of factors that are subject to change. Embracing a more nuanced understanding of history that accounts for complexity and the potential for transformation is essential for a more accurate and insightful interpretation of human development.