I actually do agree with you on a lot of that analysis, but my conclusion is the opposite of yours. Allow me to explain my perspective and worldview, in that context.

Nobody becomes a major geopolitical power without some skeletons in their closet. The USSR and PRC do not represent my ideal systems of government. I don't care much for "The Great Game" or getting the whole world to adopt one or another ideology.

But what I do care about is allowing countries, especially developing countries, to chart their own path ideologically, and to decolonize and assert control over their own resources. And the question that's always in the back of my mind is, what can allow that to happen? And the answer I've arrived at is, "Having multiple options for trading partners." And the country that is presenting a second option for these countries is China.

In a world dominated by one superpower, if you're a small country going against the interests of that superpower, how can you have any hope? But when there's two great powers, you can play them off each other, you can say, "the Chinese are offering me this, what can you offer?" and turn around and say, "the IMF just beat your offer, can you beat theirs?" And if they move against you, whether through invasion, assassination, or sanctions and seizing funds, then other countries in your position will take note and move towards your competitor.

China often offers fairly lucrative deals to these countries, and is also flexible regarding their domestic policies compared to the World Bank or IMF. A big part of that is simply that they're trying to break into the market. But another part of it is that China's own development was very messy and they don't really see it as something for other countries to follow and emulate.

My dream is not a world dominated by China rather than the US. My dream is rather that some random developing country will have the freedom to experiment and will hit on the right formula to flourish, and will both grow themselves and provide a model for growth for similar countries. China is primarily a means to that end. At the same time, they did make massive strides in economic development and life expectancy, both compared to before the revolution and compared to before the economic reforms post-Mao.

I believe that, at least for now, China is doing more good than harm for developing nations, which are at the center of my concern in terms of geopolitics. There may come a time when China supplants the US as global hegemon, and it certainly looks to me like they're on that path. When and if that happens, I'll have to reassess my positions. But we're still a good ways off from that.

In the meantime, I believe that the best way for the US to remain competitive in the long term is to refocus domestically. There are so many crises here at home that desperately need to be addressed, and those things are fueling America's decline, and yet the only thing that gets substantial funding is the military, because of the perverse incentives in the military-industrial complex. And every time the US tries to throw it's weight around, doing things like seizing Venezuela's assets, for example, more and more non-aligned countries start to wonder if they're going to be the next ones on America's shitlist and if China might be a more reliable trading partner.

Frankly though, I don't have much hope for the US. In fact, I'm terrified by the fact that the US spends more on the military than the next 9 countries combined, while China has focused so much on economic production. I consider it a real possibility that, at some point in the future, China is going to emerge as the global economic hegemon, and the US will be desperate to maintain their place and will recognize that the only weapon in their arsenal is, well, the weapons in their arsenal. Pretty much the only thing I still have hope for is that this doesn't happen.

Now, the American ruling class doesn't want a war with China, but they do want to line their pockets and there's no better way to do that than military spending. In order to justify that, they're more than happy to saber-rattle and get people fired up against China, and especially with COVID, they were happy to blame China to deflect from their own mishandling of the situation. But doing this is playing with fire. In the short term, it just means more wasteful spending and a rise in hate crimes against Asian-Americans, which are bad enough, but they are also creating people who actually crazy enough that they do want to start WWIII. And they're just gambling that they can rile up these frenzied warmongerers enough that they won't mind when they cut education to buy more bombs but not so much that they're actually able to take power and end all human existence. But this gamble is creating the conditions for someone to come to power who doesn't know or care that the saber-rattling is supposed to be an act, and as long as it keeps working out for them, they will keep raising the stakes higher and higher until they lose control. I have no idea whether that loss of control will come in the form of a rabid, frothing nationalist, or in the form of a well-meaning liberal who's simply bought into too much of their own propaganda, like, for instance, the psychos I've seen talking about a "limited nuclear exchange" with Russia being an acceptable outcome.

There's a certain point of recklessness where the only responsible thing to do is to refuse to be a party to it. Frankly, too much attention goes to voting choices in the US presidential election, but I believe there are strategic arguments to vote third party and I'm not motivated solely from frustration or spite, though there are plenty of other reasons why I hate his guts, and it's a longshot that a vote will matter at all regardless.

If you disagree with me, or see me as misguided, stubborn, or whatever else, that's all fine. But whatever I may be, I am a person and not a bot or a foreign agent or a conservative in disguise, and these are my real beliefs and concerns. If you've made it through this long comment, I'm grateful.