From a theoretical and practical perspective, viewing the contemporary global dynamics through the lens of “democratic capitalism” versus “non-democratic capitalism”, coupled with the concept of “warm cold wars,” provides a valuable analytical framework to understand today’s geopolitical realities.

Firstly, the concept of democratic capitalism refers to political systems that combine free-market economies with pluralistic political institutions based on the rule of law and popular representation, as seen in most industrialized Western countries. In contrast, non-democratic capitalism describes economic models that may incorporate market mechanisms or state-directed economies but operate under authoritarian or single-party political regimes, such as certain models in East Asia or Eurasia, where capitalism serves to consolidate political power rather than foster political pluralism.

Secondly, the world today witnesses what can be termed as “warm cold wars,” a prolonged strategic rivalry among major powers that mixes characteristics of the traditional Cold War — such as influence competition, ideological conflict, and alliance-building — with features of “warm” conflict, including direct economic confrontations, sanctions, trade wars, cyberattacks, and proxy military engagements.

Thirdly, this analytical framework helps explain ongoing shifts where fault lines in the international system are no longer solely based on traditional ideological divides (capitalism vs. socialism), but rather on competing models of capitalism themselves. The United States and its allies strive to uphold a liberal democratic capitalist model, while powers like China and Russia promote a model of capitalism intertwined with authoritarian governance, reshaping global political and economic rules.

Therefore, viewing the world today from this angle provides clearer insight into the multipolar distribution of power, the intertwining of economics and politics, and the resurgence of strategic competition that is more complex than the traditional Cold War yet less than a full-scale military confrontation—hence the term “warm cold war.”

If desired, I can also provide an analytical table comparing these four models: democratic capitalism, non-democratic capitalism, the Cold War, and the warm Cold War.

This reads like a CHATGPT review and implications of my article shared above RETHINKING DEMOCRACY 106. I shared it because democratic friends and foes seem to be acting like if we were living in the past as without the distintion normal liberal democracy/democratic capitalism, extreme liberal democracy/democratic based temporary authoritarianism, and permanent authoritarianism you can miss the fact that democratic based temporary authoritarianism is in an internal cold war with normal liberal democracy and a mixed external warm cold war(soft, extreme) with permanent authoritarianism depending on the nature behind permanent authoritarianism(China, Russia, ....) and an external cold war with other normal liberal democracies....

The thinking before 2016 Brexit and Usexit no longer holds as competion for power internaly in liberal democracies is not between normal democratic outcome vrs normal democratic outcome as now the competion is between normal democratric outcomes and extreme democratic outcomes...

Hope you take the time to read this article....

Respectfully yours;

Notice that the term "warm cold war" as used here in this paper and other papers by me is my contribution to democratic vrs non-democratic thinking as I am not aware other academics thinking outside the box this far.

Democratic capitalism vs non-democratic capitalism and “warm/cold wars” as a lens on world dynamics: many 2023 commentators argue this framework is useful because it captures how regime type shapes economic instruments (market openness, regulatory constraints), geopolitical rivalry (competition over tech and standards), and how economic statecraft (sanctions, industrial policy) produces zones of cooperation and contestation reminiscent of “warm” competition and “cold” containment, though analysts caution it can oversimplify hybrid regimes and transnational corporate influence.