What are the causes of the growing electoral support experienced by authoritarian political options in liberal, pluralistic societies? How can democracies stop this drift towards authoritarianism? Finding answers to these questions has become urgent to prevent these twenties of the 21st century from rhyming with what happened in the twenties of the last century, when European liberal democracies, not knowing how to respond to the socioeconomic problems of the time, left the clear path to totalitarianism and Nazism. In the literature published in recent years on the causes of the return of authoritarianism there are two types of explanations: one is socioeconomic in nature, the other is cultural in nature. The first maintains that the rise of electoral support for authoritarianism is the result of social unrest caused by the intense inequality that has emerged in the last three decades in Western developed societies. This inequality is caused by the coincidence of several processes: neoliberal policies of market deregulation, particularly labor markets; the automation of many industrial production processes, favored by the first wave of information and computing technologies; commercial globalization, with the incorporation of China into international trade and the competition of its products with the production of Western developed countries; and, by the deindustrialization and loss of good middle class jobs in many regions and small and medium-sized cities of Western developed countries, as a consequence of automation and globalization. The cultural explanation maintains that the increase in support for authoritarian options is the result of demographic and generational changes that have occurred in recent decades in developed societies. These changes have brought, in turn, transformations in dominant cultural values. On the one hand, the increase in migratory flows towards countries that are suffering from this increase in inequality and the loss of middle class jobs have given rise to reactions of rejection, racism and xenophobia towards foreigners; immigrants perceived by many nationals as competitors for good jobs and for the social benefits and public services of the welfare state, such as education or health. On the other hand, generational changes have brought a transformation of cultural values among young people who, especially men, now question the advances in equality policies and the recognition of rights of different social groups. Which of these two arguments has greater capacity? explanation of the increase in support for authoritarianism? They are both somewhat right; but, in my opinion, the main or first cause is socioeconomic. I see the cultural explanation as a second derivative of the first. If this increase in inequality and loss of good jobs had not occurred, the cultural reaction would not have occurred, or would have been much less intense. Although it is also possible that my inclination towards the socioeconomic explanation may be due to the fact that I do not see how the existing cultural unrest in our societies can be stopped, while I am able to envisage solutions to the socioeconomic unrest. To save themselves, democracies Liberals and market capitalism have to regain the ability to generate the shared prosperity they achieved in the Thirty Glorious Years that followed the Second World War. At that historical stage, the social democratic contract – which was achieved by a consensus between social democrats, liberals and Christian democrats – meant that, on the one hand, market capitalism was capable of creating good middle-class jobs; and, on the other hand, that the new welfare state—through education, health, unemployment insurance and pensions—was capable of creating a more egalitarian society with more opportunities for social advancement. The result was that liberal democracies and market capitalism won the battle for shared prosperity over the totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe and Asia. Today, on the contrary, the battle for shared prosperity is being lost by liberal democracy. . Totalitarian systems, like China, uphold the “authoritarian sufficiency thesis.” According to this idea, to generate prosperity for all, civil, union and political liberties are not necessary; Two things are enough: a State with the capacity to generate wealth, and the capacity to provide fundamental public goods, such as health and education. And that is what autocrats offer. The thesis of authoritarian sufficiency is a powerful lure for those social groups that in liberal democracies do not have access to good middle-class jobs; even at the risk that the authoritarian leaders they vote for will curtail or suppress civil and union liberties. To win the battle against totalitarianism, liberal democracies have to recover shared prosperity. The path is the creation of good middle class jobs. It won't be easy. The attempt to achieve this through a push for reindustrialization is more of an illusion than a real possibility. The industry will no longer represent what it was in our economies, neither in percentage of GDP nor in employment, although it will continue to be a determining sector for innovation, productivity and strategic autonomy of the economies of democracies. Our industrial economies have definitively transformed into service economies. Around 80% of GDP and employment now comes from these services. And it will increase. The challenge is, therefore, to create good jobs in the services sector, especially in health, care and tourism. But just because it is not easy does not mean it is impossible. The objective has to be to give more capabilities and productivity to workers in these sectors. To do this, we have to use new green and digital technologies, in particular, artificial intelligence to improve the productivity of medium and low-skill workers, and not to replace them. As I say, it won't be easy. But the success of dual training, which I already mentioned on another occasion, and the research of economists like Daron Acemoglu—this year's Nobel Prize in Economics—or David Autor offer us answers to how to do it. I will return to this question another time.