Conservative populism or just crypto-fascism?

But seriously, why wouldn't we just go back to our pre-Christian roots? Christianity isn't even a native European thing—honestly, most churches today are basically just campaigning for more immigrants to come in and convert them, which is wild considering how Darwin pretty much dismantled those Semitic myths. I mean, wouldn't people rather believe in Odin? Like, if you step up to defend Europe, instead of some promise of seventy virgins, you’ve got Valkyries waiting for you. This whole liberalism thing... it’s seductive, sure, but it’s straight-up destructive. It’s a Masonic concept driven by people who worship the same Semitic thinkers, and look where that got them—acting like colonialists in South Africa just looking for cheap labor. You want proof? Just look at Lothrop Stoddard's Revolt Against Civilization or the whole "Rising Tide of Color Against White-World Supremacy" vibe. Even in *The Great Gatsby*, you see Tom warning all those wealthy liberals about what's coming for Western civilization in America, basically telling them to go read that book. The real alternative to liberalism is building a sort of European Matrix—if you caught the movie—to protect Zion for our own genetic advancement. We're talking massive automation controlled exclusively by Europeans who become so powerful they look like robots to everyone else... you know, achieving that Nietzschean Übermensch status. It really comes down to this massive dilemma: are we upgrading our genetics or letting them slide? That choice is on us. Evolution is all about elevating the capable and weeding out the weak. Nature is going to wipe out the incompetent whether we help it along or not—just look at what's happening across the Mediterranean. It's punishing Western stupidity for inviting in jihadists, which is tanking the birth rates of Europeans while non-Europeans just keep multiplying. It’s a pure survival struggle. A potential anthem for the European Union or a revived Roman Empire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlti1a_i-LU
Back in the day, non-European Christians were the ones burning Rome, and now, it's non-European Muslims doing the heavy lifting. Our job is to stop these barbarians before we end up in another Dark Age fueled by Islam. Why on earth would any European be against their own progress or a 21st-century version of a Pax Romana? The struggles of other non-European civilizations aren't our problem to solve. We shouldn't be carrying around this guilt complex that the liberals (aka the Masons), Christians, and Communists try to shove down our throats. Let's get that nonsense out of our heads right now and start hardwiring Western ideas into our brains instead. We can literally make a list of every great Western thinker and use that as a blueprint to build the future of Western civilization. The ideas occupying the average European right now aren't even ours—they've been culturally forced upon us through this manufactured guilt, pushed by foreign conquerors who are just jealous of everything the West has achieved.

Honestly, those Masonic principles—they’re a much safer, better bet for humanity than religious dogma.
It’s all about the "temple"... that idea of constant building.
You know exactly what globalization is aiming for—one unified world, one people.
Sure, there’d still be hierarchies or social classes, but nothing based on race or religion... so why not just let the masses have their little rituals and things to bow down to?!
Personally, I think this whole surge in conservatism (and radicalism/terrorism too) over the last decade... it’s all been manufactured.

That temple the Masons are putting up in Jerusalem? It’s all about establishing Pax Judaica. And let’s be real—for that to actually happen, the Pax Romana has got to go.

Nah, they’ve been coexisting with every single religion since the days of Babylon.

Chris Myers said:I'd much rather not have even had to support Trump, because honestly, that feels unnatural to me. That’s why I called it a paradox; the fallout was obvious in 2016. He wouldn't have won if he just had the Republican base. It happened because so many people were fed up with Obama and his circle, while HRC was promising the same old stuff—or worse.

When Obama won in 2008, there was this sense of hope that things might finally change from what previous administrations did. But Obama let people down, and his "Hope" and "Change" became synonymous with lies. Even I was disappointed, along with plenty of voters in my swing state, Florida. The 2016 results could only have shocked hardcore Demse and HRC loyalists.

And look, as an American who lives through these daily real-world struggles with other Floridians and Americans, I know the situation better than someone getting everything through a news feed. Whether you like it or not, I hate to say it, but in 2016, America needed a completely different kind of leader. Someone vastly different from your favorite candidate.

cosmicgull52 - open your mind.

---

Anyway, let's not turn this into another Trump thread (since that isn't the point here)...

If I had been born earlier and caught in World War II here in the States, I don't doubt for a second which side I would have picked: the resistance, obviously. I come from a working-class family; my ancestors were farmers. My place is with the workers and the laborers... I wouldn't be a communist, I have no interest in that, but back then, the resistance was the best choice for the common man, the worker, the farmer.

There is no left wing today that compares to the resistance back then. Today's "quasi"-left would have sold out the working class to Hitler in a heartbeat just to protect their own interests.

It isn't lost.
The right wing in the EU gained a lot of ground regarding these refugee waves and other issues, but when you look closer, that extreme right has no answers to many questions. They will fail there in the long run.

Europe needs a total reset. Though I hope that reset doesn't involve another massive war.

I am not a bot, and I am certainly not a carbon copy of one specific political circle; I have my own views and I don't just parrot whatever a single political party tells me. I would much rather be an individual than a partisan clone.

For the most part, I lean left—probably closer to a libertarian leftist. But there are certain things where I actually agree with the right.

I am no fan of people like those hypocrites on the far-right religious circuit. However, I do understand that the family is a vital pillar of society. I have absolutely no issue with gay families; I believe they should have the same civil rights as any other family. I support LGBTQ individuals and their rights, and I want them to have equality alongside all other citizens.

But... it is also not okay when LGBTQ individuals break the rules and then play the victim once they get arrested and charged. Have you ever been to a Pride parade? I have (in San Francisco and Miami). I’m glad they’re celebrating and having a good time, but I don't necessarily need to watch guys performing sexual acts in public, especially where children under 12 are present, only to whine about their rights being violated when they get busted... What if I started having sex with my wife in the middle of the street in front of kids?

And some gay people actually condemn these parades, because they've started to lose their purpose now that many gay people have achieved the same rights as straight people. They used to make sense back when people were fighting for basic rights. Personally, it's their choice—if they want a parade, go for it, and I'll show up and support them! Most of those parades are fun.

But... the nucleus of society is the family. And when I say quasi-liberalism destroys families, I don't mean what you think I mean. They destroy the family by eroding labor rights, failing to protect the little guy from the banking lobby, massive taxation, the pharmaceutical lobby, and so on. Those elites aren't destroying the family through Pride parades; they're doing it through much more serious actions that undermine basic human needs for both the individual and the family.

The law needs to be equal for everyone. If you think this perspective makes me narrow-minded—then I guess I'm proud of being narrow-minded.

Solid post, though that bit about libertarianism really caught my eye. But hey, I guess that's what this forum is all about, right? 😁
The stuff about parades reminded me of "The Hunger Games"—you know, that part where the poor kid gets to the Capitol and sees all those flashy, pampered people parading around.
While the left was busy celebrating their little antics, the middle class was drowning in student loans, medical bills, and everything else.

Chris Myers said:Poles are always opposites, but roles aren't. It’s absurd how today, both the quasi-liberal left and the center—and even a good chunk of the right—have taken on the role of protecting the powerful (one pole), while only recently has a more extreme wing of the right stepped up to defend the masses (the other pole). This imbalance is dangerous, and Cestar noted it quite clearly. You can't stop a collapse if one side holds onto those who need change while the other side benefits from keeping this harmful status quo. The twilight of democracy is becoming hard to avoid.

Seriously, go check out this debate between sociologist Frank Furedi and political scientist Ivan Krastev.

PEOPLE’S POPULISM VERSUS DEMOCRACY OF THE ELITES?

In this book, Frank Furedi associates the rise of populism with culture wars, as he looks at the dissonance between the US and Canada and the way in which populists and populist causes are often negatively portrayed in the media. He concludes that anti-populist moral panic reveals how American liberal elites have lost faith in the power of democracy and the ability of ordinary people to be responsible citizens.

Maybe the real issue isn't populism itself, but anti-populism... and the fact that American institutions are losing all legitimacy.

Regarding your point about democracy potentially hitting its twilight—I have to mention how Furedi wraps things up by highlighting that sudden, positive shift in how the citizens of Washington, D.C. acted right before and during those famous "historical uprisings"...

Is that enough reason to stay optimistic about whether today's generation can pull off a transformation? I really hope so...

Steven Fox37 said:Then which side is it? The right? 🤦

It’s a fair point, really. They aren't right-wing, nor have they ever been... but you can't exactly call them Marxists either. In any standard political breakdown, those views sit squarely in the center. I mentioned how Bill Clinton and Tony Blair essentially gutted the old social-democratic parties, pivoting them toward a more liberal-democratic stance—which is exactly what we're seeing now. Meanwhile, the populist vacuum left behind by the left was filled by conservative parties, which transformed into true people's parties. Politics doesn't tolerate empty space, and since the left stopped speaking to the working class, someone else had to step up.

Even the label itself is meaningless if you look at the history. Take the original fascists under Mussolini in Italy; their style of governance was relatively benign in the early stages, much like how certain communist regimes operated in Eastern Europe back in the day. The term "fascism" originally evoked the power of the Roman Empire. Before they were tainted by Nazi influence, these movements didn't push ethno-racial agendas or anti-Semitic policies. Mussolini himself started as a leftist union leader and even established a socialist republic after his initial coup. He used to claim he was a bigger socialist than Marx ever was.

This modern, forced definition of "fascism"—the one the left uses as a convenient weapon to disqualify anyone they disagree with—is fundamentally wrong, just as I've laid out here...☕

Kyle Nelson2 said:Populism isn't just empty demagoguery, so why should we assume it's inherently bad?

When people talk about crypto-fascism, I’d argue that extremism on both sides—left and right—eventually leads back to fascism. For the right, it happens through nationalism, while for the left, it's driven by globalism. Basically, you end up with Nazism on one side and Communism on the other.
Nowadays, it seems like the far-left is running the show everywhere, pushing this whole "progressive" agenda.

You see these progressives in power all over the place: Villiband in the USA, Bernie Sanders, Angela Merkel, and Andrea Nahles, plus Manuel Barroso, Matteo Renzi, and Pedro Sánchez in Spain. Even all those Swedish prime ministers over the last 50 years, Alexis Tsipras in Greece, the entire Democratic Party there, or even going back to François Mitterrand to "Flamboyant" in France, and then Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and even that icon of the modern left, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( 😂 )

With this kind of left-wing crowd holding the reins for the last 15 years, I guess voters aren't really left with much choice besides voting for sovereignty-focused movements—what some call the modern right.
The old-school left actually came from the working class; they actually cared about them. But today's version? It's just elite, salon-dwelling types indoctrinated by cultural Marxism.
What kind of left do we have in America? We have leaders who still act like they're running a private club rather than a political party. Most of the people in the Democratic Party are just the kids of former establishment elites, raised with silver spoons and special privileges, and now they're just trying to protect their own status. In my opinion, the last real socialist we had was someone like a true old-school labor leader.

They say space is curved—that every direction within it is actually an arc where the two ends, left and right, eventually meet at a single point. For totalitarians, the greatest enemy is always the totalitarian of the opposite side, because they see one another as dangerous competitors for absolute power.

In that light, the deepest hatred is reserved for those who deviate from the orthodoxy (think St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre style)—be it Communism or Fascism. It’s no wonder that the "far-left" hates a former communist like Harmon even more than they hate some hardened "clerical fascist."

Amanda Allen4 said:They say space is curved—that every direction within it is actually an arc where the two ends, left and right, eventually meet at a single point. For totalitarians, the greatest enemy is always the totalitarian of the opposite side, because they see one another as dangerous competitors for absolute power.

In that light, the deepest hatred is reserved for those who deviate from the orthodoxy (think St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre style)—be it Communism or Fascism. It’s no wonder that the "far-left" hates a former communist like Harmon even more than they hate some hardened "clerical fascist."

Original Italian Fascism isn't strictly a right-wing ideology; many political science experts argue it was an ultra-left movement, a direct descendant of the Jacobins... There's plenty of debate there, but it’s clear how the left hijacked the term after WWII to use it as a convenient label for all nationalist movements. Their goal was a massive, supranational state modeled after ancient Rome... This constant playing with semantics isn't just harmless wordplay. It's a tactic. They want to poison the well of nationalism, which is foolish, because without nationalism, you can't have patriotism—they are two sides of the same coin. By preemptively condemning any emotion tied to one's nation, they serve the globalist agenda, rebranding patriotism as something synonymous with mundialism, pushed by the same central powers....

I find myself repeating this often, so here is another chance to lay it out. There are plenty of decent American scholars who explain this manufactured shift in terminology quite well...

I don't even know where to begin with this—honestly, I'm at my wit's end! How can anyone sit there and act like this isn't a massive issue? It’s absolutely absurd! Is anyone actually paying attention, or have we all just decided to stop thinking entirely? It’s infuriating! kaže:
Why is fascism automatically branded as the ultimate evil by default? So what if fascist Italy launched aggressive wars against other sovereign nations? Big deal! The socialist Soviet Union did the exact same thing—yet nobody seems to view socialism through that same lens. Why the double standard?

I have this nagging suspicion that we are on the verge of seeing a massive resurgence of fascist ideologies in the near future—though, let’s be honest, they won't be running under that specific label. Fascism will likely remain a dirty word for quite some time. What I am actually referring to is the concept of forcing a compromise between labor and capital, all held together by the backbone of a powerful, centralized nation-state. From there, you get the predictable chain reaction: aggressive pro-natalist policies, massive infrastructure projects, large-scale mobilization, and the pursuit of a utopia driven by a singular national vision. If you ask me, that is exactly what America needs right now.

So, let me get this straight—are we really suggesting that totalitarianism in the name of the working class (communism) is somehow globally inferior to a brand of totalitarianism centered on the nation (fascism/Nazism), which is merely parochial? Is that the argument? How can one possibly claim that a globalist agenda is "lesser" than a localized, nationalist obsession? It’s an absurd proposition!

It is an absolute paradox—how can we sit here and ignore the fact that, from a purely economic standpoint, globalization is vastly superior to any form of autarky? Honestly, where is the logic in trying to isolate ourselves when the math clearly favors an open market?

Henry Garcia13 said:It’s a fair point, really. They aren't right-wing, nor have they ever been... but you can't exactly call them Marxists either. In any standard political breakdown, those views sit squarely in the center. I mentioned how Bill Clinton and Tony Blair essentially gutted the old social-democratic parties, pivoting them toward a more liberal-democratic stance—which is exactly what we're seeing now. Meanwhile, the populist vacuum left behind by the left was filled by conservative parties, which transformed into true people's parties. Politics doesn't tolerate empty space, and since the left stopped speaking to the working class, someone else had to step up.

Even the label itself is meaningless if you look at the history. Take the original fascists under Mussolini in Italy; their style of governance was relatively benign in the early stages, much like how certain communist regimes operated in Eastern Europe back in the day. The term "fascism" originally evoked the power of the Roman Empire. Before they were tainted by Nazi influence, these movements didn't push ethno-racial agendas or anti-Semitic policies. Mussolini himself started as a leftist union leader and even established a socialist republic after his initial coup. He used to claim he was a bigger socialist than Marx ever was.

This modern, forced definition of "fascism"—the one the left uses as a convenient weapon to disqualify anyone they disagree with—is fundamentally wrong, just as I've laid out here...☕

What "traditional breakdown" are we even talking about here? Economic? Because there's no such thing as "gay rights" on an economic scale—it's not left, right, or center. You're just slapping the label of gay rights onto the centrists and neoliberals because they use social issues as a shield for their unpopular economic agendas. They use anti-racism as a cover too, so does that mean everyone has to be a racist? Every political platform has to provide answers to both social and economic questions. That's not just politics; it's the reality of the world we live in.
As for the legacy of Marxism-Leninism, Lenin actually decriminalized homosexual acts. Then Stalin came along and banned them again. So, it seems to me you're more interested in the legacy of Stalinism.

Steven Fox37 said:What "traditional breakdown" are we even talking about here? Economic? Because there's no such thing as "gay rights" on an economic scale—it's not left, right, or center. You're just slapping the label of gay rights onto the centrists and neoliberals because they use social issues as a shield for their unpopular economic agendas. They use anti-racism as a cover too, so does that mean everyone has to be a racist? Every political platform has to provide answers to both social and economic questions. That's not just politics; it's the reality of the world we live in.
As for the legacy of Marxism-Leninism, Lenin actually decriminalized homosexual acts. Then Stalin came along and banned them again. So, it seems to me you're more interested in the legacy of Stalinism.

Fine, now even Koba isn't good enough—and I actually thought he was the best...

I was under the naive impression that centrism was tied first to liberalism—the classic kind, at least—before evolving into this modern product that started gaining traction before WWII. No one should be banning homosexual relations, but for liberals, individual liberties are supposedly the primary focus. That’s where the whole mantra comes from: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, free media, individual and religious rights, freedom of assembly, gender identity, and so on and so forth... though since liberalism literally means liberty, there's really no need to list it all out. Then come the failed economic theories and political thoughts with much later roots. Honestly, the entire ideology is an extreme, parasitic, and inert thing. It shouldn't be surprising then, given how they bombard us with gender issues and constant innovations in human rights terminology just to justify their own unwarranted existence as the mainstream. Their role is essentially to act as vanguard NGO groups, nothing more.

And regarding the way people point fingers at the right today, accusing them of fascism—not just here in this thread, but everywhere—I think it's all completely arbitrary and baseless...

Henry Garcia13 said:Fine, now even Koba isn't good enough—and I actually thought he was the best...

I was under the naive impression that centrism was tied first to liberalism—the classic kind, at least—before evolving into this modern product that started gaining traction before WWII. No one should be banning homosexual relations, but for liberals, individual liberties are supposedly the primary focus. That’s where the whole mantra comes from: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, free media, individual and religious rights, freedom of assembly, gender identity, and so on and so forth... though since liberalism literally means liberty, there's really no need to list it all out. Then come the failed economic theories and political thoughts with much later roots. Honestly, the entire ideology is an extreme, parasitic, and inert thing. It shouldn't be surprising then, given how they bombard us with gender issues and constant innovations in human rights terminology just to justify their own unwarranted existence as the mainstream. Their role is essentially to act as vanguard NGO groups, nothing more.

And regarding the way people point fingers at the right today, accusing them of fascism—not just here in this thread, but everywhere—I think it's all completely arbitrary and baseless...

This whole idea of a "division" is just a mess. You're claiming gay rights are central because they're "liberal," and then saying "liberals" are in the center. It's like you're just slapping a label on a group you don't like and then declaring that gay rights belong wherever that group sits. Gay rights aren't a political party or a specific political orientation that you can just slot into a division like that. You have left-right in an economic sense, and liberal-conservative in a social sense. Even if that distinction feels a bit too simplistic sometimes, let's face it: people are complex beasts.

I realize that LGBTQ+ rights and the concept of new gender identities aren't inherently political orientations. It feels more like modern leftists are attempting to weaponize them into a primary political ideology—a convenient distraction from their failed economic policies. Personally, I have nothing against these rights or any individual liberties, but this should be an intimate, private matter focused on protecting personal integrity. Instead, we’re being subjected to this relentless, irritating bombardment from NGOs, political parties, and the mainstream media. Regarding how this ideological divide plays out, I'll start by pointing out the hypocrisy within the left, which isn't actually about ideology at all, and then move on...

And for the record, fascism has absolutely nothing to do with the populism seen in the modern right, let alone conservatism. Nor is fascism some synonym for a Satanic ideology, at least not in its original sense...

Henry Garcia13 said:I realize that LGBTQ+ rights and the concept of new gender identities aren't inherently political orientations. It feels more like modern leftists are attempting to weaponize them into a primary political ideology—a convenient distraction from their failed economic policies. Personally, I have nothing against these rights or any individual liberties, but this should be an intimate, private matter focused on protecting personal integrity. Instead, we’re being subjected to this relentless, irritating bombardment from NGOs, political parties, and the mainstream media. Regarding how this ideological divide plays out, I'll start by pointing out the hypocrisy within the left, which isn't actually about ideology at all, and then move on...

And for the record, fascism has absolutely nothing to do with the populism seen in the modern right, let alone conservatism. Nor is fascism some synonym for a Satanic ideology, at least not in its original sense...

I think we can find some common ground here. Like I’ve mentioned before, you and I probably agree on a whole bunch of things, but there is absolutely no way I'm voting for a radical John Doe. 😁

Henry Garcia13 said:Original Italian Fascism isn't strictly a right-wing ideology; many political science experts argue it was an ultra-left movement, a direct descendant of the Jacobins... There's plenty of debate there, but it’s clear how the left hijacked the term after WWII to use it as a convenient label for all nationalist movements. Their goal was a massive, supranational state modeled after ancient Rome... This constant playing with semantics isn't just harmless wordplay. It's a tactic. They want to poison the well of nationalism, which is foolish, because without nationalism, you can't have patriotism—they are two sides of the same coin. By preemptively condemning any emotion tied to one's nation, they serve the globalist agenda, rebranding patriotism as something synonymous with mundialism, pushed by the same central powers....

I find myself repeating this often, so here is another chance to lay it out. There are plenty of decent American scholars who explain this manufactured shift in terminology quite well...

Exactly. In a political sense, Italian fascism was ultra-left, much like Nazism, which was born in Germany following its example. Even the word "Nazism" is a compound of "national" and "socialism." It differs from communism only in its foundation. Fascism uses the nation as its base, whereas communism relies on class. A nation is a specific, culturally and territorially bounded segment of society, while a class is viewed as something global and universal.

When we examine economic models and how they evolve, it is blatantly obvious that the most successful ones are those that allow for maximum market freedom—which inevitably leads to market globalization. It is quite paradoxical: every leftist supporter embraces "globalization" when it serves a spiritual or civilizational trend, yet the moment it becomes a material, economic model, they suddenly turn around and condemn it!

If you need proof, look at communist China. They embraced a capitalist economic model specifically to avoid the inevitable collapse that hit their communist rival, the USSR, which stubbornly clung to its ideological dogmas regarding a "classless" society even as its economy crumbled.

Steven Fox37 said:What "traditional breakdown" are we even talking about here? Economic? Because there's no such thing as "gay rights" on an economic scale—it's not left, right, or center. You're just slapping the label of gay rights onto the centrists and neoliberals because they use social issues as a shield for their unpopular economic agendas. They use anti-racism as a cover too, so does that mean everyone has to be a racist? Every political platform has to provide answers to both social and economic questions. That's not just politics; it's the reality of the world we live in.
As for the legacy of Marxism-Leninism, Lenin actually decriminalized homosexual acts. Then Stalin came along and banned them again. So, it seems to me you're more interested in the legacy of Stalinism.

Actually, there is.

From the perspective of the left and even the center, no one should be paid less for doing the same job just because of their gender or sexual orientation.

In practical terms, this means a gay person or a woman shouldn't be earning a lower salary than a heterosexual man for performing the exact same role.

The same goes for job security; they shouldn't be fired for those reasons either.

Back in the 1960s, things were quite different in America. Back then, being gay didn't just mean you might lose your job—it often meant you ended up behind bars.

Dragon said:Look at how much order there was in Italy during the fascist era -

A mobilized youth, full of confidence and resolve, marches toward a magnificent future.

Compare that to today’s world. Every sexual perversion is promoted as a positive thing. Today’s youth are high, drugged, and drowning in nihilism and meaninglessness. Which path will Europe choose?

Thank God, their future ended up like this:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FqLejwqAk...on_Compass.jpg

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos...7180?s=612x612

@InterMezzo

I just saw the post. I will provide a more detailed response once I have a moment.

You make several valid points. However, regardless of the question, Trump and other crypto-fascist populists are not leaders anyone should celebrate.

Theoretically, it might be beneficial that his selection brought mainstream attention to something that would have been considered extreme left-wing by American standards just a decade ago. Still, I fear the cost will be far too high.

EDIT: Also, I attended Pride in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and I witnessed no such chaos. I am not saying it doesn't happen in SF or Miami, but that is a matter of poor organization and police response. Ultimately, it is a local community issue. It certainly isn't a symbol of some orchestrated plan to destroy families or threaten "normal" people.

Amanda Allen4 said:Exactly. In a political sense, Italian fascism was ultra-left, much like Nazism, which was born in Germany following its example. Even the word "Nazism" is a compound of "national" and "socialism." It differs from communism only in its foundation. Fascism uses the nation as its base, whereas communism relies on class. A nation is a specific, culturally and territorially bounded segment of society, while a class is viewed as something global and universal.

When we examine economic models and how they evolve, it is blatantly obvious that the most successful ones are those that allow for maximum market freedom—which inevitably leads to market globalization. It is quite paradoxical: every leftist supporter embraces "globalization" when it serves a spiritual or civilizational trend, yet the moment it becomes a material, economic model, they suddenly turn around and condemn it!

If you need proof, look at communist China. They embraced a capitalist economic model specifically to avoid the inevitable collapse that hit their communist rival, the USSR, which stubbornly clung to its ideological dogmas regarding a "classless" society even as its economy crumbled.

Spot on. Global capitalism essentially demands a borderless marketplace.

With the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of socialist regimes back in the 90s, capitalism transformed into a truly global system. Because of that, globalization became an unstoppable force in the modern world.