Best case scenario is that this is a good hedge with decent risks, worst case scenario is that it is a worthwhile asset class to manipulate at a lower cost compared to other asset classes.
EDIT: I don't agree with the larger tone of the article, but there are merit-worthy points that are made in it.
Bitcoin's creator satoshi wrote extensively about economics and politics and, to my understanding, its invention was explicitly anti-authoritarian.
The only part that I may slightly disagree with is that unlike the case of denim or Che shirts, there is at least a theoretical endgame that escapes the traditional framework.
Note that I don't think bitcoin will reach that endgame, but I think that is a slight distinction.
Forms of control are not always very direct. Let us, hypothetically, say the big state actors jump in to take control of 80% of the available bitcoins available, under various entities, they have control and authority and little accountability.
This is already a reality in some equity markets, where retail investors are under 20% and rest of the players are institutional players. It will take much lesser than what it takes to move a large equity market, to move BT.
There is a good reason why there is no global barter system. It simply won't work at that scale. A global barter system -- that would be truly subversive.