Hi electronician! How's it going?
I must say, that when we formulate the question of what we should "learn from history," or what "history has to teach," we make a very, very curious assumption.
If we are supposed to "learn" something "from history," then this means that history has something to "teach" us. What do we mean when we say that?
What I mean to say is: A teacher teaches; and a teacher is a human being, a sentient being who conveys information (hopefully en route to knowledge) to one or more students, also human beings. The only other teacher(s) that have ever been acknowledged are the gods or God (known by many names) via one or another religious text. Of course, since the supposed lessons are not very straightforward, mediation by a priesthood of some kind has always been thought to be desirable.
Therefore, by "history" do we mean "God" or "gods"? And by the way, who is this "we" we often refer when asking such a question about what history has to teach "us"? By "we" are you talking about all of us, humanity as a whole.
But who is it, exactly, who fail to make use of whatever "lessons" "history" has to "teach"? Is it all of us, the average citizen who have the policy-making power to either acknowledge and apply or ignore the lessons of history? Or is it a comparatively much smaller segment of the political and economic elite in America and other nations of the world that has such power?
One example: In the 1970s, the leaders U.S. companies responded to renewed competitive pressure from Western Europe and Japan to, for one thing, offshore manufacturing jobs overseas to cheaper labor forces. Question: Do you think that if workers themselves managed those plants, they would have made such a choice, thus failing to "learn from history"?