That's what I took from the article - despite the intent of the author, maybe. There's a warning in there - the Chinese model may become attractive to many countries and movements and we - liberal democrats - need to fix our weaknesses to stay competitive.
I think that this is a serious concern. Liberal democracy is in crisis in the "west" too. This doesn't mean it's doomed, of course - but we need to reevaluate the economic and social policies of the last decades to protect the freedoms we value, because China HAS changed.
Liberal democracies have largely sat on their laurels and people have a stereotypical view of China that doesn't correspond to reality - China is no centrally planned clusterfuck, it's a thriving and dynamic country which poses significant challenges to the US.
The liberal democratic system is undoubtedly better for the human and civil rights of its citizens. It's not enough to offer more freedoms than other regimes, though, to keep the citizens on your side. People and societies need more than just that.
We shouldn't sacrifice and should defend human and civil rights from illiberal trends from inside and outside the liberal democratic bloc. We also need to understand what motivates those illiberal trends, to better counter them.
Liberal democracy isn't a gift of a benevolent god, or a state of nature. It's a political system, a good system but that like every system needs to be implemented well. Countries need improvements and maintenance. China has invested in growing and improving. Have we?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Rojava was the closest the 21st century got to a left-libertarian/anarchist phenomenon, but since they allied themselves with the US (only to then be betrayed by the US, by the way) some people in the far-left reject them in favor of acritical anti-American "anti-imperialism".
There's nothing even remotely progressive or leftist or liberal or libertarian about the Syrian regime - the regime just happens to be aligned with Russia and so hostile to the US.
I'm getting a bit tired of people who think that criticism of some institutions justifies embracing "alternative" institutions as rational. Even if institutions are flawed people far too often embrace "alternative" institutions uncritically, with little skepticism. 1/
It's something I've noticed with lots of online contrarians - they think that since the "MSM" are flawed or liberal democracies are flawed or politics in a corporate-friendly field are flawed (which is true) then EVERYTHING they do or say is forever tainted and unreliable 2/
Instead they completely embrace the "alternative" media or the propaganda of various authoritarian regimes or "populist" policies acritically, without verifying their claims, because "if the flawed institutions want to suppress it/deny it/debunk then it's true". 3/
That's soemthing that's happened to lots of claims about the virus - for example "it affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions more than the young and those in good health" has often been shifted into "if you're young and in good heath you don't need precautions"
Or the mask/no mask saga - emphasis over how they needed to be worn correctly, they're not a panacea and they weren't enough for hospital workers in the beginning was referred to as "they're useless" which has then shifted to "they're muzzled against our freedom".
The truth is that complex, nuanced messages are likely to be poorly understood AND simple but inaccurate messages, even if "well intentioned" are likely to be exposed as inaccurate and feed into resentment and anger at those who used them. You can't win.