Authoritarian capitalism
Moreover, the Axis powers of World War II have been described as possessing totalitarian capitalist economic systems, acting as examples of the early developments of authoritarian capitalism.
[7] From the end of World War II, various authoritarian capitalism regimes emerged, developed and transitioned into a liberal capitalist model through East Asia, Southern Europe and Latin America.
[6] Highlighting this appeal, Robert Kagan stated: "There's no question that China is an attractive model for autocrats who would like to be able to pursue economic growth without losing control of the levers of power".
[13] Moreover, while recognising the limited scope and reducing pace of capitalism within China, with The Heritage Foundation ranking them 110th for economic freedom in 2018,[14] Michael Witt argues that China broadly displays capitalist traits with a significant number of companies either being private or shared between private and public owners alongside a strong entrepreneurial presence despite a continued predominance of indirect state control.
[16] As Ang writes in Foreign Affairs, "[t]o achieve this kind of growth, the government must release and channel the immense creative potential of civil society, which would necessitate greater freedom of expression, more public participation, and less state intervention".
[17] As stated by Joseph Kurlantzick, "China's growth 'model' has shown impressive resilience in recent years", with an ability to rapidly respond to crises, confidence around economic success and growing soft power being used to explain it.
These reforms have been described as involving both obtaining the support of businesses through low corporate tax rates and preventing opposition from entities such as trade unions or low-income workers through authoritarian measures.
Friedberg also describes the 1996 presidential election as the point where authoritarian capitalism began forming within Russia, depicting an increasingly powerful majority party backed by media controlled by oligarchies and led by Boris Yeltsin and later Vladimir Putin.
[29] Daniel W. Drezner, writing for Foreign Policy magazine, argues that when societies get richer, their citizens start demanding more political accountability and democracy.
[9][29] Chellaney has further stated that through using elements of capitalism, regimes may more effectively employ modern technologies to suppress dissidence towards government such as the Great Firewall used within China.
[29] Niv Horesh also argues that authoritarian capitalist model offered by China is a viable alternative to liberal capitalism, with more effective decision making processes.
[8] The core of this argument lies in the view that citizens will support whichever regime provides material comforts which increasing economic inequality and automation in liberal capitalist nations undermine.
Moreover, challenges to liberal capitalism from an inability to adequately cope with advances of technology have also been raised, summarised in the statement by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd: "Democracies, like corporations, can now be hacked.
[20] In recent years, the Ease of Doing Business scores and rankings of the authoritarian capitalist states Hungary and Poland have fluctuated around the same level, while Singapore remains at the top of the world and China has improved dramatically.
