Examples of Authoritarian Capitalism in the past and today.

AUTHORITARIAN CAPITALISM

In this article, inspired by Fukuyama's belief that liberal democracies are more successful than authoritarian capitalist regimes, even though they are both implementing the economic theory of capitalism. I would like to examine some old and current cases of authoritarian capitalist regimes. To see if they are really less successful or not than their liberal counterparts and how democracy can be best implemented with a system that can easily and in many cases successfully be combined with authoritarian regimes. Since authoritarianism is the opposite of a free democratic society. Is the existence of authoritarian countries following capitalist economic models proof of the existence of a contradiction between capitalism and democracy?

"I am not a dictator, I just have a grumpy face"

The phrase from the title above is rightly attributed to the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. During his reign, he implemented a brutal regime, which was advised in economical issues by the prominent school of Chicago, a known advocate of capitalism and the creator of neo-liberal ideology (Valdes, 2008). His regime was praised for its economic transformation openly by politicians like Margaret Thatcher and capitalist economists like Milton Friedman. In this case, we will start with an old, no longer existing authoritarian capitalist regime that implemented radical liberal and capitalist economic politics. With many neo-liberal politicians still being nostalgic of the policies of his era. Milton Friedman explained in one of his interviews that even though he is not a fan of dictatorial regimes, he called the case of Pinochet's Chile as a success story of economic reforms (Valdes, 2008). While he was also organizing meetings with general Pinochet and even teaching classes at that time in Chile. A military Junta which ended 150 years of democracy and overthrew the democratically elected leader at that time, Alliende. A regime that imprisoned and tortured thousands of students, politicians and artists, was implementing radical policies of a capitalist economy. And if someone is sceptical about the level of authoritarianism in Chile at that moment, he can remember the appalling scene of while the World Cup was organized in Chile, next to the stadium where prisons, in which political dissidents were tortured with the most barbaric of methods (Valdes, 2008). With their voices of despair from being covered by the cheers of the crowd. Pinochet, under the influence of the free-market-oriented "Chicago Boys", implemented a capitalist economic model, with the removal of taxes from big private corporations and the privatization of social security and hundreds of state enterprises, along with the privatization of the pension system and the independence of the national central bank. Apart from that, his regime was also known for its amount of corruption between the authoritarian leadership and the private sector(Pinochet's Economists the Chicago school of economics in Chile -The Pinochet's Case, 1998). Fortunately for the people of Chile, the capitalist regime came to an end and now the country can be characterized as a liberal democracy, still suffering from its political past and facing many financial problems even today. It will be a timeless example of how a brutal regime became the favourite guinea pig for radical capitalist policies, which were implemented successfully, even according to the school of Chicago itself.

Capitalism made in China

We now move on to 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. 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 in the so-called amazon sweatshops. Obviously, China could easily fulfil many criteria of a dystopic authoritarian state, with many criticizing the Chinese Communist Party of actually 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 centres. In the reality, according to many witnesses and journalist research, they are a form of ghettos, in which the minority of Uyghur, who happen to leave in the area of the north-west of China is deliberately oppressed and blackmailed, in order of the avoidance of any possibility of claiming independence, even through extreme fundamentalist Islamic movements (Hill, et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, the economy of China seems to be in a constant increase and development, with many describing it as an economic boom. Hundreds of millions of people have emerged through poverty in the last 50 years, after the adoption of free-market reforms in 1979, which had as a result for the Chinese economy to be more open up towards the global trade and taking an important role to 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 democracies worldwide (James & Zhu, 2021). In other words of this essay was arguing regarding the superiority of the capitalist economic model, over the socialist one, implemented by the so-called soviet republics and still in a sense being implemented in places like Pyongyang. 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 so-called only state-planned economies. We will discuss some arguments about that in the process of explaining Hayek's views. But the whole topic of the essay will have to do with examining and explaining the contradictions between the systems of capitalism and democracy, as we have been doing and will not ba a financial contest of superiority and productivity of the capitalist and socialist model of economy. 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 the 1978-1979 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 make 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 has a really positive result. There are also state-owned companies that have an important part in the economy and support the interests of the state. With foreign investments in countries that would improve the amount of influence and that will ensure a friendly relationship between China and foreign countries and will allow the possibility of any future cooperation. It is not a coincidence that Chinese state-owned companies have been funding the 80% of the countries 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 the 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 it can actually prospect when decisions are being made at 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 get 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 initiatives and has warmheartedly endorsed the global and state market economy model. Along with that, we also observed other examples like 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 the cooperation of many liberal economists, like the school of Chicago and politicians known for their capitalist endorsement and anticommunist hate, like Margaret Thatcher. Previously I mentioned that if this essay was dealing with the success of the capitalist model over the implemented socialist one. 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 globally would show that capitalism is probably already on the pedestal of history waiting to be awarded as gold winner. Similarly, the plenty of cases of authoritarian capitalism historical, being endorsed by the capitalist establishment, the problems that liberal democracies are facing in financial crises and the deprivation of their citizens. The incompetence of the liberal democratic state and government to protect the safety of their citizens due to the corruption and the lack of accountability against private corporations, responsible for the misuse of money or environmental disasters. 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 taking 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 that emerges as a result of a democratic deficit in capitalism. In this case, I think is normal for us to wonder, if the belief of Fukuyama regarding the liberal market system being the future end 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, is capitalism the pragmatosis of humanity's optimistic future, or should we perceive these signs of disfunction as a call for the urgent need of a more humane and economically more democratic transition? In my opinion, we should listen carefully to the "signs"

Sergios Saropoulos