Pablo Touzon, founder of Panama magazine, recently produced a fascinating piece entitled How the Argentine Left Created Milei. The article exemplifies the application of American historian John King Fairbank's "stimulus-response" model.
Touzon suggests that the German historian Ernst Nolte, in his 1994 work The European Civil War, 1917-1945: National Socialism and Bolshevism, maintains that national socialism in German history was essentially a reaction to the Leninist Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. According to Nolte's viewpoint, the mass mobilization, single-party rule, state terror, and other practices of Leninism resembled those of German National Socialism in 1945.
Touzon continues to argue, following Fairbank's stimulus-response model, that today's Javier Milei in Argentina is essentially a creation of Argentine left-wing Kirchnerism. According to Touzon, there was a decade-by-decade differentiation in development: during the first decade, bolstered by past wealth accumulation and significant demand from China, the left-wing government performed well economically. However, in the second decade, Latin American economies experienced a noticeable reversal, with prolonged economic stagnation and inflation reaching unsustainable levels. These conditions led to the emergence of Milei in Argentina. Therefore, Touzon believes that Kirchnerism was responsible for the emergence of Milei and his prominence. In other words, Milei is essentially a reaction stimulated by Kirchnerism.
I am not entirely certain about the methodological approach Mr. Fairbank employed in his historical research, nor whether contemporary circumstances provide sufficient justification for continued adherence to his renowned "stimulus-response" model. Conversely, following the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan, I have formulated my own framework of "historical realism", which operates specifically under a "response-reaction" paradigm. This model fundamentally posits the concept of "reactions to reactions". From the perspective of historical realism, no aspect of reality exists in isolation from historical contexts or the past, regardless of its temporal distance. Under such interdependence, a "reaction" referred to here is essentially the direct outcome of the preceding action. Such a "reaction" is then a series of actions performed in a particular manner, implying a continued response to these prior actions in the continuum of time. Hence, this model is known as the "Response-Reaction" model.
We can see such cases of "response-reaction" in Afghanistan, Iran, India, Latin America, and even China. Presently, the West is avidly examining China's Third Plenum, marking it as a prominent area of research. I propose that a thorough understanding of China's history of reform and opening-up is essential. This understanding reveals that the extensive reforms outlined at the Third Plenum, reportedly numbering up to a staggering 300, are not incidental but rather inevitable. For China, reform represents a deliberate policy solution, a form of responsive action. Objective historical analysis shows that Deng Xiaoping's reforms brought considerable prosperity to China. However, China's economic growth rate has decreased from about 12% during the 18th Party Congress in 2012 to approximately 5% today. If Deng Xiaoping's reforms responded to China's economic and social conditions after 1949, then today's reforms at the Third Plenum naturally represent another phase of responsive adaptation.
Therefore, from the perspective of historical realism, the world becomes both interesting and simple. The principle of timeline analysis in information analytics permeates the domain of historical realism, revealing an intriguing cognitive model known as "response-reaction". This model demonstrates continuous changes along the timeline, yielding a result that is not overly complex. The world repeats the past, and there are inherent, structural relationships among all things. This is a real connection. At least, it is evident in the current reality of China today.
