The far-right populist Alternative for Germany party rejects a values-based foreign policy, just as much as it rejects NATO and the US. That approach has attracted the attention of Beijing.
Do you have an interpretation of the reverse process to your thesis, like Portugal, Spain, Greece, Brasil, Chile, that went from Fascism back to liberal democracy?
Those are not strictly speaking counterexamples. Capitalist systems have tendencies which lead to socio-economic and political crisis. These, pushed far enough, and without a socialist revolution, tend to culminate in something like fascism in the modern era.
The original fascist states also all went back to liberal democracy at the end of WWII. They were crushed by the liberal capitalist states which correctly perceived them as geopolitical rivals of the first importance by the mid-late 30s. The other fascist states were also pressured into transition back into the liberal imperialst orbit of the Cold War. In both cases, they were reintegrated as they proved unable to fully complete a world fascist counter-revolution.
The transition of Spain between the death of Franco in 1975 and 1978 was not as smooth or non-violent as it’s popularly imagined. It was a very violent period. Fascist regimes are inherently inefficient in the long-run from the POV of socio-economic and cultural development. Further, Franco had started to distance himself from a more aggressive fascism once it was clear by 1943 that the fascists would lose WWII into order to transition back, at least in appearance, into a traditionalist, Catholic, authoritarian one-party state. It was still fascistic, but to a lesser degree and I think it had also lost it’s dynamism. This was also reflected in the internal balance of power of the Spanish political regime. The more radical fascists lost influence and
Spain became heavily integrated into the Western European and Atlantic economy. It became an ultra-conservative client state of
These other fascist states, which were tolerated because they did not pose as serious a threat to the imperial interests of the US, Britain and France, and because they were willing to accomodate
However they were also undermined by their own inefficiencies, economic and political, and pressure
We know that the socio-economic base transforms itself in such a way as to overcome disequilibrating forces that emerge in their social relations, especially once the latter are no longer sufficient to further developing the means of production, especially in a system of like capitalism whose basic functioning is premised on the fact of continued production of profit
My point is that as the base structure develops in this manner, it not only does so in conjunction with the the superstructure, and not only transforms the superstructure in order to reach new points of temporary stability, but
Do you have an interpretation of the reverse process to your thesis, like Portugal, Spain, Greece, Brasil, Chile, that went from Fascism back to liberal democracy?
Those are not strictly speaking counterexamples. Capitalist systems have tendencies which lead to socio-economic and political crisis. These, pushed far enough, and without a socialist revolution, tend to culminate in something like fascism in the modern era.
The original fascist states also all went back to liberal democracy at the end of WWII. They were crushed by the liberal capitalist states which correctly perceived them as geopolitical rivals of the first importance by the mid-late 30s. The other fascist states were also pressured into transition back into the liberal imperialst orbit of the Cold War. In both cases, they were reintegrated as they proved unable to fully complete a world fascist counter-revolution.
The transition of Spain between the death of Franco in 1975 and 1978 was not as smooth or non-violent as it’s popularly imagined. It was a very violent period. Fascist regimes are inherently inefficient in the long-run from the POV of socio-economic and cultural development. Further, Franco had started to distance himself from a more aggressive fascism once it was clear by 1943 that the fascists would lose WWII into order to transition back, at least in appearance, into a traditionalist, Catholic, authoritarian one-party state. It was still fascistic, but to a lesser degree and I think it had also lost it’s dynamism. This was also reflected in the internal balance of power of the Spanish political regime. The more radical fascists lost influence and Spain became heavily integrated into the Western European and Atlantic economy. It became an ultra-conservative client state of
These other fascist states, which were tolerated because they did not pose as serious a threat to the imperial interests of the US, Britain and France, and because they were willing to accomodate However they were also undermined by their own inefficiencies, economic and political, and pressure
We know that the socio-economic base transforms itself in such a way as to overcome disequilibrating forces that emerge in their social relations, especially once the latter are no longer sufficient to further developing the means of production, especially in a system of like capitalism whose basic functioning is premised on the fact of continued production of profit
My point is that as the base structure develops in this manner, it not only does so in conjunction with the the superstructure, and not only transforms the superstructure in order to reach new points of temporary stability, but
But an overly reductionistic