>But don't you think it's redundantly tautological and circular/self-referential to approach it like "Fukuyama himself considered capitalist democracy to be the End of History, so it is the supreme progress/triumph (end of history?) to have that".

I had considered you to be asking about Fukuyama's views. In my views, history doesn't have an end, except possibly for everyone dying out.

>Besides, I was coming from a philosophical perspective to the point where the basis of the things transcend the transient notions;

The what now?

>how/why does having an oligarchy or a corporate tyranny or a state with social welfare somewhere at some point in time is any more significant than some predator somewhere making some species extinct or some big wave scattering across in the ocean a million year ago or after

It's significant to the people living through it! How's that supposed to not count as significant?