I didn't believe this until the lockdown. Being told what to do is something that makes you instantly appreciate freedom.
There will always be revolt, given enough time. CCP have outdone themselves in that department though. They've learnt from USSR and Cuba.
In USSR/Cuba people know. They talk to outsiders and realize the don't live like they're better. China has learnt and told their citizens that they're bullied everywhere so the CCP was made to protect them. Genius really.
That is fucking scary. We have invented a set of technologies that could be used to create an un-overthrowable dictatorship and permanently enslave the human race... to get people to click ads.
Of course, with time, any approach expires. The new approach is lacking. Not surprising considering the finger-picked positions.
Certain extreme expressions of subjective human freedom can harm people more broadly. Someone building an atomic bomb in their basement is a threat to my human rights, as is a company blowing unfiltered coal smoke all over my town. Enough people emitting enough fossil CO2 globally might threaten the rights (and damage the property) of a vast number of people. Enough people refusing to vaccinate might even be a threat (though this has to be evaluated carefully), since they're increasing my odds of contracting a disease.
Balancing absolute freedom with human rights and the broader experience of liberty and prosperity is as we would say an "AI hard problem." There exists no simple set of rules that when followed will always yield a positive result. It requires a continuous input of fully engaged intelligence and a continuous deliberative political process.
What we can say is that certain things do not do this. One-party totalitarian surveillance states, grievance-based populism, fascism, or Russia-style mafia-theocracy do not do this.
If the economy is good, then yes.
If the circumstances are daring enough, then yes.
Otherwise no
This is the key idea that has failed: the idea that prosperity equals or leads to social liberalism and human rights, or that the two are interdependent.
This idea appears to be wrong, having been disproven by China.
Totalitarianism and prosperity can co-exist just fine. Totalitarianism and capitalism can even co-exist to a degree, with the totalitarian tendency to kneecap the extremely wealthy being outweighed by the totalitarian ability to forcibly suppress workers' rights movements and pushes for higher wages. Totalitarians can also backstop the economy, stepping in in the event of a crash and forcing number to go up by edict. That benefits the investor class at the expense of the working class by effectively writing down wages and inflating assets.
This means utilitarian arguments for freedom and human rights fail. That's a big deal and undermines at least a half century of libertarian and neoliberal talking points. It means human rights must be argued for on purely spiritual, moral/ethical, or hedonic grounds, not utilitarian grounds.
I think the collapse of this key idea is as much a driver of the global push-back against globalism as working class economic concerns and cultural xenophobia, if not more. Human beings are philosophical beings and coherent narratives and ideas matter to us. When China showed that you could have totalitarianism and prosperity, the bottom fell out of the argument for the whole project.