[J Oswald]

Most modern forms of authoritarianism, whether based upon Marxist doctrine or some other doctrine, seem to conclude that the principles of the free market are incompatible with an authoritarian state. The reasons given for this vary in their form, but generally seem to coalesce around two arguments, namely, that a free market either leads to "the oppression of the proletariat," or that it weakens domestic industries and causes the degradation of national prosperity. Generally, authoritarian regimes adopting either of these positions have fallen, or, in the case of countries such as China and Vietnam, adopted a form of capitalism controlled by the state.

The failure of such dictatorial regimes to flourish in the absence of some form of capitalism begs the question (at least for me) whether a free market system, not including forms of state capitalism, is possible under a dictatorial or authoritarian regime. I have an opinion on this particular debate already, but I am wondering what others think. Is a merger of a dictatorial regime and a free-market economy possible?

[starman2003]

An authoritarian state is incompatible with a free market because the latter is designed to fulfill individual desires, whereas an activist or aggressive State wants to control production to favor its agenda e.g. tanks or space vehicles instead of private cars. In other words, the State or whole is paramount and wants the individual to sacrifice for it. Even authoritarian systems which theorectically favored the masses like the communists acted like that in practice.
The drawback of such a wholist (i.e. state or whole over individual) system is that many individuals, being naturally selfish, won't do much work without an incentive (personal gain). IMO the ultimate solution will be automation/robotization. Mechanical slaves--or perhaps cloned/genetically engineered biological slaves--won't need much incentive.

[Bridgeburner]

Most modern forms of authoritarianism, whether based upon Marxist doctrine or some other doctrine, seem to conclude that the principles of the free market are incompatible with an authoritarian state. The reasons given for this vary in their form, but generally seem to coalesce around two arguments, namely, that a free market either leads to "the oppression of the proletariat," or that it weakens domestic industries and causes the degradation of national prosperity. Generally, authoritarian regimes adopting either of these positions have fallen, or, in the case of countries such as China and Vietnam, adopted a form of capitalism controlled by the state.

The failure of such dictatorial regimes to flourish in the absence of some form of capitalism begs the question (at least for me) whether a free market system, not including forms of state capitalism, is possible under a dictatorial or authoritarian regime. I have an opinion on this particular debate already, but I am wondering what others think. Is a merger of a dictatorial regime and a free-market economy possible?

It's possible, and it exists. Look at China. The platform for small and medium businesses imo is critical.

In the West, large corporations act contrary to the interest of the populace, and are the "main" drivers of the Western economy. They are fickle, and move their production bases based on mere profit. At the same time, they strangle potential competition by buying any small and medium businesses that present a threat to them. Their input into society the people is minimal and token.

What China and Vietnam have done is ensure that key industries, and large corporations have the states interest at heart, by controlling them. Indeed, state oversight has ensured that these businesses act in accordance with the wants of the Chinese nation, and not of that of purely profit.

There exists no concept of a free market, only degrees of state control. In the U.S it is less than China, yet state control exists. All forms of "free market" are essentially state capitalism. Less state capitalism has equated to more private and not national interests being represented, which as a whole, is bad for the nation. Too much state control equates to a totalitarian state where economic freedoms are bureaucratically strangled. Compromise is the magic word, control of large businesses a necessity, and a platform established where small and medium businesses can thrive - i.e a good educational system, a sound healthcare system, and key infrastructure, all which can be provided much more easily in an authoritarian system than that of a democratic country, as the red tape and legalities could be washed aside.

[Pants-of-dog]

Chile under Pinochet is an example of an authoritarian regime that enacted free market policies.

So yes, there can be authoritarian free-market regimes.

[J Oswald]

While I generally would agree that there are few possibilities for a free market in a dictatorial state, Chile, and to a lesser extent Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew (although a democratic nation, only one party has won elections since 1959), both seem to have merged a dictatorial government and a free market system. I personally think that the free-market tendencies of these two governments, as well as the economic policies of a few others in history, are evidence that a minimally-state-governed free-market is at the very least theoretically compatible with a dictatorial system. The two afore-mentioned cases might be rare instances when the agenda of the state meshed perfectly or nearly perfectly with free-market capitalism.

[Rei Murasame]

Keep in mind that Singapore only looks like a Free Market from the outside because it has very low barriers to trade at the moment. Internally however, it's a totally different story and is not really Free Market at all. Fortunately for them.

Chile under Pinochet

Yes, basically authoritarian measures can in fact be used to enforce Neoliberalism - abominations like Pinochet can take on the trappings of a 'strong national leader', while actually being a mere butler for international banking cartels, eating fried chicken for dinner while his own people starve and/or are tortured to death for absurd reasons completely unrelated to national prosperity.

Is a merger of a dictatorial regime and a free-market economy possible?

It's possible, but you shouldn't want to do it, since it defeats the whole point of having a country. Authoritarian Neoliberals are basically frauds that get inflicted onto nations by outsiders, it's not something that you would want to bring onto yourself.

It's one thing to dictatorially have the nation participate in global trade where necessary to seek your nation's ends (Lee Kwan Yew), but it's a totally different - and altogether horrifying - thing to let global economic forces dictatorially run your country (Augusto Pinochet).

[Preston Cole]

The failure of such dictatorial regimes to flourish in the absence of some form of capitalism begs the question (at least for me) whether a free market system, not including forms of state capitalism, is possible under a dictatorial or authoritarian regime.

If you look at "flourishing" from a capitalist point of view--profit, corporate welfare, etc.--no authoritarian regime can be considered to have flourished economically. However, the whole point of authoritarianism is to substitute one mentality (capitalist) with another (social) and write history according to the values it set to inject into society. Flourishing, from an authoritarian perspective, entails social and national stability, a decent living for its citizens, and national pride. The economy is subjected to the state and not the other way around.

Of course you can have free-market authoritarianism, just as you can have authoritarian cannibalism. But, as Rei said, such perversions of political paradoxes defeat the main traits of authoritarian regimes through history: proletarian emancipation (communism) and national reconstruction (fascism), and also defeat any nobler goals beyond capitalism. Look at Idi Amin's Uganda. The man had the potential to revolutionize the country, but he had no set ideology (like many military dictatorships) and, from what I can tell, the only noble goal he wanted to pursue for his country was awarding himself the title of "defeater of the British Empire in general, and liberator of Uganda in particular," which is some weird shit, if you ask me.

abominations like Pinochet can take on the trappings of a 'strong national leader', while actually being a mere butler for international banking cartels, eating fried chicken for dinner while his own people starve and/or are tortured to death for absurd reasons completely unrelated to national prosperity.

What was nationalist about his regime, then? I remember people were singing "Nacionalismo, presente!" when he came to power. I always thought his regime was at least national capitalist, protectionist. Don't know for sure; gotta check the Wikipedia article.

[J Oswald]

The nationalism of Pinochet's regime, or at least for the half of his regime during which I was closely following Chile's development, seemed to be defined in terms of its opposition to the prior Marxist regime, as opposed to the promise of a reworking of societal values. Allende's regime, and to a lesser extent the democratic leaders of Chile prior to Allende, had increasingly tried to change fundamental aspects of Chilean culture, to which Pinochet's assumption of power was a reaction. I would define Pinochet's regime as nationalist in the more traditional sense, seeking a return to the cultural values of times past rather than trying for the progressive nationalism of other nationalist movements.

[starman2003]

I don't doubt that a free market can coexist with some forms of authoritarianism; there are a number of examples. I seriously doubt, however, that it can coexist with a really aggressive, activist state. If the ruling elite just wants to maintain itself in power and take it easy, a free market isn't a problem. If it wants to be a hegemon or spacefarer, it'll have to control economic life and production.

[Figlio di Moros]

Technically, an authoritarian dictatorship and a free market can coexist. Pinochet has been brought up, but even more free market and authoritarian is possible. Never mind starman, he's one of those self-serving ideologues; however, I'd have to agree with those who are confused at why free markets would be a goal. Why would you potentially, neglecting any arguments proving how, hurt your nation economy in favor of free market ideals?

[starman2003]

Face it, the masses have to have an incentive to produce. Free markets can be a useful interim arrangement, producing economic growth, to be ultimately bequethed to, or strengthening, an authoritarian system.