Could it Really be that Simple?

Last Saturday, I had to be in the car for several hours and took the opportunity to listen to several podcasts that I had queued up for a while. One podcast was about the state of China versus US relations. The guest and host did well exploring many angles without being political or homer. Instead of it being a China versus US chatter, they framed the discussion between two political systems - Liberal-Democracy (West/US), and One-Party-System (China).?

In summary, it came to this: both the One-Party-System and Liberal-Democratic economies seek economic growth. However, for each system, growth comes at different costs. Let me explain:?

• For a One-Party-System - Growth comes with corruption. Corruption, while a necessary evil, had to be kept in check because otherwise if the abuse impacts commoners, they will turn on the system. Hence life as the elites know it could be in jeopardy.?

• For Liberal Democratic Economies - Growth comes with siphoning wealth to the top 1%. If this siphoning is not kept in check, again, the commoners will revolt and put an end to the elite life as they know it.?

How do the systems keep the commoners in line so they keep producing?

So what I gathered is that both political systems Liberal-Democratic versus One-Party-System, have to solve the growth problem without the side effects. But could it really be that simple??

The Question: Which political system do you think will solve this problem first - One-Party-System or the Liberal-Democratic-System??