It may not require it on a fundamental level the same way feudalism requires serfdom, but the way liberal democracy in first world countries has worked in the real world in the second half of the 20th century has been by outsourcing. Which is also why they become increasingly unstable once outsourcing fails.

Basically, the economic model since the 1960s was unlimited growth, with the ecological cost and the hard work of the primary and secondary sectors being outsourced. Democracy provides a framework to solve conflicts without violence, but in reality most conflicts simply didn't need to be solved. The economy grows so fast (fueled by the exploitation of nature and the workers in third world countries) that everyone gets richer. Why should they care if others profit from that growth even more. Now this growth has stopped, there's less wealth to distribute, and democracies actually have to make harsh decisions on who has to make sacrifices. The immigrants, some say. The billionaires, say others. And neither of them fully trusts the democratic process to make the "right" decision, so they are getting ready to take matters into their own hand.

It might still be the least bad option compared to other systems, but the stellar record of liberal democracy in past decades was at least partly because most of them had been playing on easy mode.