Some common sense on the seeming triumph of authoritarian capitalism

ARTICLE: "The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail," by Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs, January-February 2009.

Ikenberry is a smart guy. I use his pull-back-versus-dominate-versus-transform choice for post-victory strategy in Great Powers.

First good point: "there is nothing in the liberal vision that specifies the exact timing of political opening as a part of socioeconomic transformation."

Second good point: "Proponents of the autocratic viability argument set up something of a straw man in their insistence that the absence of political liberalization in China and Russia refutes the liberal vision." In effect, we were unrealistic in our expectations after the Cold War's end.

Also, there are three huge internal contradictions within this model: 1) rising wealth creates more public demand for participation and transparency and accountability; 2) capitalism only advances with rule of law in the private economic sphere, and it's impossible, over time to ghettoize it there, sealing off the political realm; and 3) economic advance creates a diversity of interests in a way that poverty and underdevelopment can't.

As for China, think Zhou Enlai on the French Revolution: it is simply too early to argue a successful alternative; the place is simply far too poor.

Killer line near end:

Those invoking the nineteenth century as a model for the twenty-first also fail to acknowledge the extent to which war as a path to conflict resolution and great-power expansion has become largely obsolete. Most important, nuclear weapons have transformed great-power war from a routine feature of international politics into an exercise in national suicide.

Beyond all that, all the big global problems necessitate great-power competition.

Add it all up and very much to my way of thinking. Great article.