Yes, it's pretty clear he was falsified. (China didn't go liberal! Shocker.) Doesn't mean his ideas weren't thought-provoking. But it's probably best to think of such political science as political philosophy.
I think there is just not a shared definition for "history" among people who here that line in a vacuum, vs more Marxisty type people. "history" is a very particular thing for Marxists. even in his book you are talking about, it is talked about on those lines, not in an everyday concept of history.
I don't understand why this comment is here. It's a good thing to point out to people that don't know what he meant, but within his own framework he was incorrect, which he admitted. The social relations we see today are not the ones he originally predicted and there's absolutely no guarantee that it won't get "worse" or go in a completely different direction.
