China's success as an ill omen for Europe.

A still-thriving authoritarian society that follows a capitalist economic model, and it is currently considered to be the second-largest economy in the world.That could easily be a definition in a lexicon of modern geopolitics .Even though China is still facing many ethical and existential issues, like environmental catastrophes and emissions that are causing pollution, as well as issues that many other authoritarian or even liberal states are facing, like the oppression of speech, minority marginalization and terrible working conditions.

Obviously, China could easily fulfil many criteria of a dystopic authoritarian state, with many criticizing the Chinese Communist Party for making known Orwellian books a part of reality. With the creation of literal death camps, or as the Chinese Communist party calls them, vocational education and training centers. In the reality according to many witnesses and journalists research, they are a form of ghettos, in which the minority of Uyghur, who happen to leave in the area of north-west of China is deliberately oppressed and blackmailed, in order of the avoidance of any possibility of claiming independence.

Nevertheless, the economy of China seems to be in on a constant increase and development, with many describing it as an economic boom. Hundreds of millions of people have emerged from poverty in the last 50 years, after the adoption of free-market reforms in 1979, that had as a result for the Chinese economy to be more open up towards the global trade and taking an important role in foreign and global markets. China experienced an unprecedented economic performance to such an extent that it is considered to be one of the most fast growing countries worldwide (James & Zhu, 2021). The current and historical economic facts, along with the Chinese example of economic booming after adopting a capitalist financial model would have made pretty clear that the results of capitalism have been extensively and evidently more promising than some state-planned economies. This Chinese model has been characterized as authoritarian capitalism and its architect was Deng Xiaoping. He was the figure who decided for China to abandon in the 1978-1979 the soviet economic state planning model and to adopt a capitalist economy that would still ensure that the communist party will remain in power For this reason the CCP made sure that it is represented in most private companies, and the state even promotes managers for specific companies in order to help them grow. Something that seems really interventionist but no one can deny that it actually had a positive result. There are also state-owned companies that have an important part in economy and support the interests of the state. With foreign investments in countries that would improve the amount of influence and that will ensure friendly relations between China and foreign countries and will allow the possibility of a future cooperation. It is not a coincidence that Chinese state owned companies have been funding the 80% of the country's foreign investments. Examples of such investments are the cases of Ethiopia, in which China's state companies invested a big sum of money in Ethiopia's roads and infrastructure, while at the same time building the new African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa, a project that was funded by China for free, with many believing that this was another move of China trying to expand its influence on Africa (BBC, 2012). Of course, in this increasingly productive capitalist economic model of China, there are still some problems like corruption due to the close ties between corporations and the Communist Party officials, along with problems of censorship and freedom of speech that someone could say that they work as a hurdle on the development of the cultural industry, like films and TV. However, I believe that the authoritarian system works as a perfect combination with the capitalist model of economy that China's is following, with the long planning of investments and the creation of infrastructure, coming from the authoritarian decision of the central committee. Showing that capitalism not only works in an authoritarian political model, but additionally that actually prospers when decisions are being made on an authoritarian level. Whereas in a democracy, many times the will of the people could actually work as a resistance against the initiative of private companies, as it seems in an authoritarian state the private initiative can thrive as long as it does not getting involved with political "stability" or in the other words the political status quo of the country.

Even though some hardcore neo-liberal politicians and theorists tend to deny recognizing China as a capitalist state. We can clearly observe that China not only operates in the financial sphere as a capitalist state , but also created a new form of authoritarian capitalism in the political sphere. Where the leadership of a Communist Party is actively promoting private initiative and has warmheartedly endorsed the global market economy model. Along with that, we also observed other examples like the Pinochet's Chile. A brutal dictatorship which not only implemented one of the most radical capitalist policies, like the privatization of the pension system. And other policies that made Milton Friedman call it a success story. It also had the support of many liberal economists, like the school of Chicago and politicians known for their capitalist endorsement, like Margaret Thatcher. The existence of China as well as the historical collapse of the Soviet Republics and the endorsement of capitalist values from the whole of western Europe and, would show that capitalism is probably already on the pedestal of history waiting to be awarded as a gold winner. Similarly the plenty of cases of authoritarian capitalism, being endorsed by the capitalist establishment, the problems that liberal democracies are facing in financial crises and the deprivation of their citizens. Furthermore with the existence of an actual success story of the Chinese model of authoritarian capitalism. Are not only showing some evident cases and issues of contradiction in liberal societies between democracy, which desperately requires the equality and protection of its citizens. But also that the authoritarian capitalist model of China or Singapore takes the reins of capitalist development and makes crystal clear that the liberal democracies are facing lots of financial and political issues through crises, corruption and social turmoil. In this case, I think is normal for us to wonder, if the belief of Fukuyama regarding the liberal market system being the future of humanity, in a teleological way, or the belief of being the best of the worst, is actually true, both as it seems for the sake of economy, as authoritarian capitalist regimes seem to be experiencing a radical economic development. As well as in the social reality, in which in matters of freedom might be better from any dictatorship of this world, but there are still facing a plethora of issues that can be proven fatal for democracy and humanity. In that case, if capitalism is the pragmatosis of humanity's optimistic future. Should we perceive these signs of disfunction as a call for the urgent need for a more humane and economically more democratic transition? In my opinion, we should listen carefully to the "signs" and decide with the political responsibility, suitable for the "free world".

Sergios Saropoulos