Pablo Touzon, the founder of Panama magazine, has recently published an intriguing article titled How the Argentine Left Created Milei. This piece demonstrates the application of American historian John King Fairbank’s “stimulus-response” model.
Touzon explores the argument made by German historian Ernst Nolte in his 1994 book The European Civil War, 1917-1945: National Socialism and Bolshevism. Nolte posits that German National Socialism can be understood primarily as a reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. According to Nolte, the mass mobilization, single-party rule, and state terror characteristic of Leninism bore a striking resemblance to the practices of German National Socialism by 1945.
Touzon argues, using Fairbank’s stimulus-response model, that Javier Milei’s rise in Argentina can be attributed to the influence of Argentine left-wing Kirchnerism. He suggests that the economic performance of the left-wing government was initially strong, thanks to previous wealth accumulation and high demand from China. However, as the second decade progressed, Latin American economies, including Argentina’s, faced economic stagnation and unsustainable inflation. These adverse conditions created a fertile ground for Milei’s emergence. Consequently, Touzon contends that Kirchnerism played a crucial role in shaping Milei and his prominence, positioning him as a reaction prompted by Kirchnerism.
While I am not fully acquainted with the methodological specifics of Fairbank’s historical research, or whether the “stimulus-response” model remains relevant today, I have developed my own approach to historical analysis. In light of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, I have formulated a framework I call “historical realism”, which operates under a “response-reaction” paradigm. This model is based on the idea of “reactions to reactions,” asserting that no element of reality exists in isolation from historical contexts, regardless of time. Under such interdependence, a “reaction” referred to here is essentially the direct outcome of the preceding action. In this view, a “reaction” is a direct result of a preceding action, and a series of actions unfolds as an ongoing response to these prior actions. Thus, this approach is referred to as the “Response-Reaction” model.
We can observe the “response-reaction” model at play in various regions, including Afghanistan, Iran, India, Latin America, and even China. In the case of China, I argue that a deep understanding of China’s history of reform and opening-up is crucial. When looking at this angle, the recent Third Plenum of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) outlined extensive reforms, reported to number up to 300, are not a random act but rather an expected development. For China, reform is a strategic policy response. Historical analysis shows that Deng Xiaoping’s reforms significantly boosted China’s prosperity. However, China’s growth rate has decreased from around 12% during the 18th Party Congress in 2012 to approximately 5% today. If Deng’s reforms were a reaction to China’s post-1949 economic and social conditions, then the current reforms emerging from the Third Plenum are a natural phase of responsive adaptation.
From the perspective of historical realism, the world is both fascinating and straightforward. The principle of timeline analysis in information analytics aligns with historical realism, unveiling a cognitive model known as “response-reaction”. This model illustrates continuous changes along the timeline, producing outcomes that are not overly complex. The world often mirrors the past, revealing inherent, structural connections among events. This is a tangible reality, as evidenced by China’s current situation.
