Even if it has a naturalistic explanation, a story whose heroes are ordained by fate would teach the same lessons as Star Wars. While David Brin is reading it.

I note that Brin has to try to explain away the climax of RotJ in order to support his contention as to what the lesson of Star Wars is, and that his contention has gotten weaker over time with the prequels.

The actual story of the Star Wars films is how every Force-user in the whole galaxy was defeated by a handful of scoundrels over a period of less than thirty years. The prequels tell how the Jedi were wiped out by non-force-using clones of the bounty hunter Jango Fett. Then the fate of the first Death Star was not decided by the relative Force power of Vader and Luke, but by smuggler Han Solo shooting Vader's spacecraft. Finally, last movie has the second Death Star destroyed by that same smuggler's force taking down a force shield on Endor and his con-man buddy flying his smuggling ship into the Death Star II and blowing it up.

That is, we have a whole series of six movies that, as a whole, show Force-users reduced from the most important force in the Galaxy to one survivor (who doesn't even lead a faction) by the acts of common criminals, and David Brin denounces it because he somehow concludes that the message of the movies was pro-Force Aristocracy.

A better analysis is that David Brin is a great believer in administration by organized, trained, expert bureaucrats only nominally constrained by the opinion of the demos (see his denunciations of the elected Geroge W. Bush imposing policy preferences on the unelected civil service), and so vastly prefers bureaucratic experts to be the heroes (like in Star Trek) to one where disreputable and even criminal rebels are the heroes. With that emotional reaction in place, he then looked for features in the Star Wars saga that could respectably justify his opinions, and when he noticed that Star Wars was actually a subversion of those tropes, decides that Lucas must have done the subversion by accident.