I think it’s very important to point out here that historically speaking, no autocracy has ever outperformed the democratic West on any economic or military measure over the long term. There have been periods where it seemed like managed economies were on the rise (see even the USSR during the 1950s and 60s) but this growth tailed off due to, in many cases, serious unforced errors that the autocratic political system couldn’t address. There are a lot of possible explanations for this, but the obvious one is that democracies can course-correct. We get plenty of bad leaders as well, but in the long term we replace them. Autocratic nations can have great leadership sometimes, but they can also get stuck with Mao for decades. All evidence seems to indicate that China is reverting away from a period of dynamic leadership and moving back to a period where party officials are chosen based on loyalty to one aging man, rather than their competence. Speaks to bad things ahead for China, maybe for all of us too.

I don't disagree but 20th century didn't have the internet like it is today that helps centrally managed countries be more efficient. Also, China has had the same type of government since late 1940s and unlike russia and many other autocracies it has not just survived but is doing well economically. It is also incorrect to say China is an autocracy because as powerful as Xi is, if China's economy does not fare well then he still has to answer to the communist party congress. It's not like in north korea where they have fake elections or junta regimes with no elections. His party has no plans to replace him anytime soon but only because he is performing well enough. The CCP idolizes Xi but they are not beyond replacing him if he is unable to perform his duties. My point being, it may take longer but they can course correct.