Authoritarianism is sweeping the globe. It is characterized by hyper nationalism, consolidation of power in the executive branch through a takeover of the judiciary, and the loss of civil liberties, particularly freedoms of speech. The liberal elites, the internationalist if you will, are scratching their heads wondering what went wrong.
What went wrong is the management class of the liberal order failed to share the spoils of free markets and technological advances, and more recently shut down the voices of dissent in regards to Gaza.
Economic theory will argue that advances through trade and technology will advantage the working classes. But they often don’t. Jobs get shipped elsewhere, the supply of labor expands, wages drop, asset owners profit; these same asset owners, mostly well-intended people, then hire the displaced workers to mow the lawns and wash the dishes, at their now enlarged estates.
The spoils of trade and technology are not shared. How could they be? The structural aspects of the capitalist economy involves never ending pressure to reduce costs, e.g. labor cost, in a competitive battle to induce customers and capital their way. It is the result of structural accounting issues inherent to firm specific accounting practices. Things are as they must be.
In the area of civil liberties, self-interested private capital bought the newspapers and began to peddle private interests propaganda which further feeds their machine. Speech may be somewhat free for the rest of us, although increasingly less so, but only private capital can get its message to the public in sufficient quantity to bend the public to their self-interested way.
The working class, tired of the theoretical nonsense that the liberal model will lift all ships, are attracted to a strongman or woman who says they will fix the problem. Once elected, the authoritarian figure consolidates power in the executive branch through the transformation of judicial personnel to those of similar ideological leanings.
Trump is doing this in the U.S., and Chavez did likewise in Venezuela. Since Venezuela is currently in the news, it might be beneficial to look into Venezuela with a little more detail. When Hugo Chavez assumed the Venezualan presidency in 1999, over half of the nation lived in poverty. Over the years Chavez consolidated power in the executive branch through an agreeable judiciary, and through his grip on power, he was able to greatly improve the lives of impoverished Venezuelans. The poverty rate was cut in half, illiteracy rates dropped, health care greatly expanded, food distribution became better, participatory democracy became a thing. This all came, however, at the expense of the “rule of law”.
Chavez’s grip on power allowed him to fund the advancement of the working poor through revenues from the large state owned oil firm PDVSA. The diversion of the firm’s revenues in support of the Nation’s poor, however, prevented adequate reinvestment in the firm’s asset base. When oil prices collapsed in 2014, this combined with the firm’s depleted asset base, devastated the national economy. Venezuelan oil sales account for 90% of the Nation’s export revenue and 50% of the national budget. The 2017 U.S. financial sanctions, and additional targeted sanctions in 2019, greatly exacerbated Venezuela’s economic decline.
The point for our purposes is, Chavez, despite mismanagement of the national oil company, was, for a period of a dozen or more years, able to greatly improve the lives of the Venezuelan poor. He achieved through authoritarian measures what was unachievable under the previous liberal economic order–an order which caters to the middle and upper economic classes–often at the expense of the working poor. This is why the struggling working classes are attracted to the authoritarian figure.
We should be clear on the term authoritarian. It is a very class based term. To the working poor liberated from the oppressive liberal order, if indeed they are liberated from this order, in Venezuela they were–have been set free. Venezuela’s post Chavez economic collapse, of course, likely reversed much of that liberation. It is not yet clear what will happen to the U.S. working poor under the authoritarian Trump. His trade policies will likely help some and hurt others, and would likely have had an inflationary impact, if not, for the deflationary offsetting pressure of AI, and a broader–tariff related–slowdown of economic activity.
It is typically the middle and upper economic classes who experience less freedom of movement under an authoritarian regime. Under the liberal economic order, the middle and upper economic classes are generally freer, while the poor are oppressed and living under the authoritarianism of a freer form of capitalism.
Nationalism is part of the authoritarian package. It gives people something to hang on to, while other needs are not being met: “I might be poor, but I’m an American”–if you follow my drift. It allows politicians to place the blame elsewhere for a nation’s economic woes. But this is a dangerous trend. It leads a nation’s populace to the belief that their economic struggles are the result of dark forces outside of its national borders. Nationalism also leads to a sense of moral superiority. When combined, the two forces break down the resistance to war.
It is unfair, however, to place blame for the hardship of the American working class on the struggling working classes in other nations, who also have mouths to feed. The blame should be placed squarely on the greed of the nation’s own management class who refuse to share the spoils of free trade and technological advances. The management class insist on cutbacks in education and healthcare, unless spending in these areas is channeled through the private sector where they can grab a share. They refuse to consider basic income guarantees or full employment schemes.
There is no intent here to inspire hatred or anger against the management class. They are equally products of the capitalist system, manufactured products of a capitalist ideology which fully justifies their every self-interested deed. Capital itself acts as a sort of spiritual force which shapes the character of the various actors, whether they be rich or poor. All are mere products.
An ideal world would combine the freedoms of the liberal order while maintaining a reasonable standard of living for all of its citizens. But it seems when granted freedom, the population uses this freedom for its own self-interest, rather than seek the broader common good. It is difficult to imagine a different result as the capitalist model is premised on self-interest and greed. Consequently, authoritarianism will likely continue as a powerful global force.
###
You may also be interested in:
Anti-War Store