When i say ‘political radicalism’ what i mean is the gov. & people face major adversities and respond by a radical political viewpoint in order to salvage themselves, ie the idea that ‘desperate times call for desperate measures’. THe way i see it, there have been at least 5 types of political radicalism in the 20th century. Anti-colonialism, communism, fascism, religious fundamentalism & pan arabism.
All 5 (i’m sure there are more) ended in ruin or will end in ruin, with the gov. and the people worse off than they were before. Look at what happened in Cambodia, Uganda or Zimbabwe (these are just the ones i know about) where the political philosophy of anti colonialism took root. Communism (which was a reaction to grinding poverty) destroyed lives. Stalin descimated the military, agricultural, scientific (minus the physics & aeronautics department) base of Russia while creating a stagnant industrial base. Fascism, which was largely a reaction to shame, national degredation and stagnation (to my understanding) has proven ineffective, provoked WW 2 and repressed the people.
So, does radicalism ever work or is just a slow and steady effort at reform invariably the best method?
Radicalism however seems to sometimes work when countries transform from dictatorships to liberal democracies. Chile, Spain, Hungary, East Germany and probably a variety of other countries. Major problems were faced (dictatorship) and replaced in a year or two and things worked out better but aside from that i don’t know if political radicalism ever works.
Plus China seems to be doing pretty well economically and politically. They are stable, and have the worlds 2nd largest GDP with a high growth rate.
I’m not sure “anit-colonialism” or pan-Arabism are coherent systems of thought. but one conclusion you might keep in mind is that it’s not how “radical” something is that determines whether it works or not, but how in keeping with human nature (and what people want) it is.
Communism doesn’t work.
Fascism doesn’t work.
Religious fundamentalism doesn’t work.
And by “work”, I mean on a large, country-size scale. Communism is often the system used by families among themselves. Even then, it can cause lots of problems, as anyone who has a family can attest.
Well, how do you define “work”? You had a communist state lasting for 70 years in the U.S.S.R. You had a fascist state lasting for 40 years in Spain. Iran’s been fundimentalist now for going on 25 years. So none of those systems lead to immediate catastrophic failure.
I’m not sure I think that “religious fundamentalism” necessarily qualifies as a “form of political radicalism”. After all, religious fundamentalism flourishes culturally in many states that don’t officially espouse it politically, and has done so for millennia.
What you seem to be talking about is the official combining of religious authority with political power, or fundamentalist theocracy. Plenty of theocracies lasted quite a long time too, although I’m not sure how you’d evaluate the level of “fundamentalism” in, e.g., the old Mesopotamian theocratic monarchies.
If those are your criteria for failure, then it’s kind of hard to argue that Fascism in Germany or Communism in China were failures. The people were so bad off beforehand that it’s hard to get a real handle on the benefits. Granbted there were ‘transition periods’ where countless millions died, but isn’t that normal for any change? Lots of peolpe died durig the great depression for example, before the modern welfare states were formalised. And that was a state where the people weren’t particularly bad off to begin with.
Failing the definition provided, perhaps some common sense would be in order. Was fascism good for Germnay? No. It might have benefitted some Germans for a few years, but I think we can safely say it was a failed experiment for Germany as a whole in a relatively short period of time.
I suspect most historians would say yes. Germany pre-Facsism was economically crippled by Versailles reparations. National integrity was at an incredible low due to this and various other losses of autonomy bought about by WWI treties, not least of which was an inability to produce a serious armed force.
Compare this to (West) Germany 20 years after the rise of Fascism.
Yes there was poblem witht he creation of East Germany, but given the state of Germany, the miltray restriction it was working under and the expansionism of the USSR it’s probable that all of Germany would have been under Soviet control if not for fascism.
It was a unique situation in Germany because of the problems caused by WWI, but it’s at least arguable that fascism was good for Germany.
Would some other form of government that was prepared to bluff the allies into letting it ignore its treaty responsibilities and limitations have worked better? Almost certainly. Would usch a system have been frighteningly close to either sommunism or fascism regardless? I would say yes.
I guess it determines your timeframe. Like I said, it didn’t take long for fascism to bring Germany to its knees. One has to ask oneself it there would’ve been another way to achieve progress in Germany w/o having to put it and the rest of the world thru WWII. I’d like to think that there was.
If the US suddenly prtinted 1000x the money in circulation and spread it around, it might be good for the American people for about 5 minutes. Would that then be a good act?
I’m not just talking about the pre-war economic benefis. I’m talking about the real long term benefits. Compare Germany in 1965 to a hypothetical counter-Germany still living under Versailles conditions, with Soviet tanks rolling into Berlin as they had in Warsaw. There’s no reason to assume that Germany would be more likely to become an ally with he NATO countries that were oppressing it than with the Warsaw nations.
I agree, it depends on timeframe. In 1938 it looked like fascism was beneficial. In 1945 it didn’t look like fascism had benefited Germany. In 1960 it looked beneficial again, although few at the time would admit it I suspect.
I just don’t think that, without fascism, there was any chance of Germany advancing as fast as it did. I can’t see France giving back the land it had taken after WWII, or Germany being allowed to produce a large armed force to withstand the Soviet invasion without the stimulus of a fascist government.
Yes a massive and nasty war was necessary to achieve this, but if our criteria are simply whether it benefits the people then it’s at least arguable that it did.
Germany was facing the extraordinary adevrsities mentioned in the OP. Some form of radicalism was almost inevitable. Existence under the Versailles conditions was pretty much intolerable. Some form of miltaristic totalitarian regime seems like the only way Germany could have got out. Communist or fascist. I too would like to think there was another way, but it’s hard to think what that might be. Without a big stick the WWI allies showed a distinct lack of willingness to cut Germany much slack.
Without a doubt the regime could have been much better than it was. Even someone as liberal and tolerant as Castro would have been a big improvement.
None of that changes my opinion that overall Fascism was beneficial despite being a total failure. The same could be said for Chinese communism.
You are confusing that the actions of the USSR in the wake of victory in WWII with what would likely have happened w/o WWII. It is more likely that w/o WWII, eastern Eruope would’ve stayed aligned with the west rather than come under the influence of the USSR and that no Soviet tanks would’ve rolled into Germnay (or Poland or Czechoslovkia or Hungary or…).
Fascism eventually led to world war 2 and the dissolution of Germany as a country which ended up being dominated by foreign interlopers. Thats not an accomplishment anymore than Stalin’s decimiation of the agricultural & military establishment was an accomplishment.
Iran seems like a good example of radicalism not leading to spectacular failure, like someone mentioned. They went radical 24 years ago and the government is still functioning.
Fascism eventually led to world war 2 and the dissolution of Germany as a country which ended up being dominated by foreign interlopers. Thats not an accomplishment anymore than Stalin’s decimiation of the agricultural & military establishment was an accomplishment.
Iran seems like a good example of radicalism not leading to spectacular failure, like someone mentioned. They went radical 24 years ago and the government is still functioning.
Always hard to say what would have happened if something as far reaching as WWI hadn’t occured. If you ignore Soviet expansion then you simply have a stalemated Europe with Germany living undet the Versails conditions forever. Within that scenario, it seems that the the benefits of fascim become undeniable. 5 years of crippling war and 10 years of assisted rebuilding vs. 40 years of crippling reparations.
However I suspect your conclusion on a few grounds.
The Soviet Union was allways openly expansionist virtually from inception. If not actively so then at least ideologically. The western powers feared communist uprisings, sponsored by the USSR, ever since the nation came into being. This fear was never greater tna during the depression preceding the war. This suggests that Soviet expansionism was always on the cards.
Every historian I’ve ever read has been of the opinion that much of the latter stages of WWII consisted of manoeuvering between the Weatern allies and the Soviets, rather than actually fighting the axis powers specifically. There was a genuine fer that the Soviets would attempt to take all of Germany at the end of the war. Although the war itself prompte this behaviour, it seems likely that Soviet expansionism was going to happen eventually.
Stalemated Europe? All the countries other than Germnay were doing fine. Czechoslovakia was an industrial powerhouse. Poland was firmly allied with the West-- after all Britain and France declared war on Germany when that country invaded Poland. There was a mutual defense treaty between them.
Perhaps w/o WWII there would’ve been a war between Europe allied with the US against the USSR. And Europe would’ve included most, if not all, of what was the Warsaw pact. Germany would’ve most likey been carried along with that alliance. And guess who would’ve won? In that case we’d’ve seen democracy in the USSR and Eastern Europe 50 yrs before it happend otherwise.
All speculation of course, but I think it’s the most plausible scenario (assuming that a war did, in fact, break out as described).
Hey, this is interesting. I never really thought about it before!
Which in no way detracts from the fact that your scenario implies a stalemate. All of Europe could have been paved with gold, but if no block has sufficient advanatge to change the physical or cultural boundaries then w have a stalemate. Stalemate does not require or imply any particular economic or social conditions.
Exactly where the alliance boundaries would have been drawn is anyone’s guess. Numerous European natons, notably England, were in genuine fear of communist revolution in the 30s. Anything could have happened. The chances of such revolution in the less industrialised eastern European nations with direct infiltration from the USSR was ven gretaer.
That out of the way, the rest becomes totally speculative ‘counter-Earth’ stuff. Absolutely no way of telling, and totally outside the scope of this debate anyway.
The point is that Germany 20 years after fascism is significantly better off than it would have been if the status quo had been maintained.
That at the very least makes it arguable that fascism was beneficial.
