Criticism

Criticism is essential for progress, but it is important to understand the different kinds of criticism. Lack of this distinction devolve into whataboutism, self-denigration, and ultimately stagnation

Criticism of democracy is not the same as criticism of authoritarian rule. We can and should criticise democracy, it has real problems, and we ought to seek better ways of organising society, but that is nowhere near the same as criticising dictatorship.

It would be absurd, when someone points out how horrible life is in North Korea, to respond with “what about low minimum wages and living standards in western countries?” Given the choice, most people would take minimum wage work in a democracy without hesitation.

But such arguments are not uncommon, especially in the West. Why do we do this? Mainly because we compare reality against utopia or romantic ideals, where anything that falls short is treated as equally bad.

Of course as a society we want better healthcare, affordable high-quality food, easy access to information, freedom of choice and lives not consumed by merely making ends meet. Of course we want that. But some societies fall far shorter than others in delivering these things, and criticising them all equally is a false equivalence either everything measures up to a perfect ideal, or everything is equally bad.

This distinction has huge implications for how we think and feel about our own societies. Because our attitude towards our society is very different if we believe we are no different from North Korea compared to believing we have a better system that can still improve. While the former breeds resentment, anger and dissatisfaction, the latter leads to optimism, because recognising a better system is also recognising progress, and the possibility of a better future.

Lack of hope, and the belief that progress is impossible because all systems are equally bad, inevitably leads to stagnation. After all, why even bother? They are all the same anyway.