IF I interpret him as he intended I see him as basically saying that the process of dialog or dialectic, in Hegel's terms this would be thesis, antithesis and synthesis, has ground to a halt due to the ability of liberal capitalism to marginalize all effective antithesises. This leads to a period of intellectual stagnation, as anything that might provoke significant development of our collective understanding of society is stifled. I think he is right on this and, further, that what remains is not sufficient to stand on its own and will stagnate and collapse, as it were, from its own internal contradictions. The process of wealth concentration into the hands of a very few undercuts the basis of the existing economy and society and sets the stage for a collapse of population levels in which only the strong will survive. Most of the population of the "liberal democracies" will applaud this process right up until it kills them.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."