The author’s case leans on survivorship bias and correlation/causation fallacies. China is portrayed as proof that authoritarianism “works,” while the long list

The author’s case leans on survivorship bias and correlation/causation fallacies. China is portrayed as proof that authoritarianism “works,” while the long list of failed or stagnant dictatorships (Soviet Union, fascist states, much of the post-colonial world) is ignored. Success is attributed to repressive and uninclusive government sytems rather than to the far more decisive factors: market reforms, foreign capital, and global trade integration. By collapsing this complexity into a single flattering story about centralized control, the piece functions more as an ideology and propaganda piece than a real good faith analysis of China's root causes of success. The narrative also erases China’s structural advantages: the world’s largest labor force and vast natural resources that made global dominance in manufacturing and supply chains possible. These advantages would likely have delivered major growth under democracy, and possibly with less fragility, failure, and human rights abuse. By crediting authoritarianism instead, the article smuggles in a propagandistic message: authoritarian control isn’t incidental but necessary for technological and societal success. Bullshit!