Please update your browser

You're using a version of Internet Explorer that isn't supported by Questia.
To get a better experience, go to one of these sites and get the latest
version of your preferred browser:

Invisible Fist

By Gottfried, Paul | The American Conservative, October 2, 2008 | Go to article overview

Invisible Fist


Gottfried, Paul, The American Conservative


Can capitalism and authoritarianism work together?

HISTORY WAS SUPPOSED to have ended in 1989 with the triumph of Western-style democracy and capitalism. The fall of the Berlin Wall proved, at least to the satisfaction of many American pundits and academics, that economic and political liberty advanced hand in hand. Prosperity must bring freedom and vice versa, a virtuous cycle that would lead the developing world inexorably toward American ideals.

But after 20 years, an alternative scenario has arisen. "By shifting from Communist command economy to capitalism, China and Russia have switched to a far more efficient brand of authoritarianism," Azar Gat of Tel Aviv University argued in Foreign Affairs. These countries "could establish a powerful authoritarian-capitalist order that allies political elites, industrialists and the military; that is nationalist in orientation; and that participates in the global economy on its own terms." Indeed, our erstwhile Cold War foes are doing well with their new economic systems. Russia under Putin and China since the end of Maoism have both registered high rates of economic growth. In Russia, disposable income in the last six years has risen almost four-fold, while unemployment has gone down by more than half. There and in China, the vast majority express a high degree of satisfaction with the way the government has handled the economy.

This stands in sharp contrast to public opinion in America, where 82 percent of the population considers the country to be "headed in the wrong direction." As the events of recent weeks have shown, democratic capitalism-once imagined to be the unstoppable wave of the future for the entire world-now faces an uncertain tomorrow even in the West. Pat Bucnanan noted in a recent column, "Liberal democracy is in a bear market. Is it a systemic crisis, as well?" If it is, might authoritarianism and capitalism soon seem to be natural complements, the way that free markets and democracy were once thought to be?

Advocates of "democracy plus free markets" typically favor some variation of capitalism that is fused with popular elections, religious and cultural pluralism, secularized political institutions, tolerance of homosexuality, and women's rights. These seem to be the necessary preconditions for economic and moral well-being and for a peaceful international community, since, according to this particular picture of human history, democracies never fight each other.

At least to some extent, the identification of democracy with prosperity is true. The Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995 and other more recent surveys show the correlation between high standards of living and "democratic institutions." Even such heavily taxed and regulated "democratic" countries as Sweden and Norway boast some of the world's highest living standards, as well extensive domestic and foreign investments in their economies. Welfare states such as Australia, Iceland, Canada, and Sweden also register respectable rates of economic growth. That is because these countries, like our own, are politically stable and still have relatively unfettered economies.

But there is no reason to think that only governments that are "democratic" in the current usage can provide political stability and good investment climates. Free markets are operating well in very different political systems. One of the most successful examples of nondemocratic capitalism is Singapore, which after winning independence in 1959 flourished under the firm hand of Lee Kuan Yew, who was prime minister or senior minister from 1959 until 2004. Lee has always stressed economic productivity and very low taxes. But in a 1994 interview with Fareed Zakaria, he pronounced his opposition to "Western democratic imperialism." While acknowledging that the U.S. has some "attractive features," such as "the free and open relations between people regardless of social status, ethnicity or religion" and "a certain openness in argument about what is good or bad for society," Lee expressed doubts about the American way "as a total system.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Invisible Fist
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.