The thing is, is The HAARP Report guy, even, alive? Irma was headed 4 Mar-a-Lago the same time Branson had BO trapped on Necker Island. You do the math.
Venus is locked and loaded, X damage already laid in. See Dane Wigington 4 calibration, perhaps mental_boost as well. Astonishing boundary value conditions have been brought to light, for sure.
@@boysiedent6149 predicate is sooo much more important to the sleep that remains uncalibrated in these exclamations focused on posts instead of pillars. Sigh.
Thats the thing, and he also talks with the same accent in French, German and so on and so on. And since its always harder to learn and understand the language if youre not learning how to pronounce it properly, it just shows how much more effort he had to put in to be able to converse fluently in all these languages.
I love how Zizek answers whatever he wants to every question he gets. Boss. He answers clearly about what he knows and doesn't try to make up an answer
He's describing reality and human subjectivity to the best of his ability. Both of which are very confusing. Once you get tuned in to his wavelength and are familiar with the concepts, you can most often discern a point. He is most valuable for me in that his contrarian positions on lots of things tend to cause a satori moment where I see the other half of an issue I was blind to. Things can be two things at once 😉
I’m from HK, and I love China. Western scholars and media has never talked about the 120+ protests happened in HK when Britain ruled it. CIA funded so many students in HK to riot. Yet, we see USA can even provide legal presidential progress on their land
Posted one day ago, broken english(a bit), baseless claim about CIA funded protests and 50 likes on a video from half a year ago. Totally legit. Just kidding, you are not foolling anyone Winnie the Pooh
@Bhum Brahmavira Yes, cuz mao did his best fucked all types of capitalists in their asses. What scares us the most is that capitalists stopped running away from China, but now Chine swamps with all kinds of capital all over the world.
@Bhum Brahmavira so you guys arent choosing to believe a real Honk kong person? yeah let those trash escape to other country their no more a child their criminal after what have they done to the community and traitors collusion with foreign forces your good America is also involed training these motherfucker ,calling it Democracy Revolution? Bullshits these riot just killed some civilian destroying building and public utilities, here's source ua-cam.com/video/Zi1Gj3_cJSI/v-deo.html I don't care if you guys believe it or not just fuck off you guys know nothing
Very pragmatic the control & banning of literature, novels or academic stuff that does not promote their principles or ideology. The same pragmatic delusions you guys have about yourselves too.
@Christopher Grant china is absolutely ideologically driven, however pragmatic some policies seem to be... counter to the original point made where it's not ideology, rather pragmatism that drives china.
@Christopher Grant However singapore is kinda great. A lot of productivity with that if you just stick to the rules and work hard. I found it hard to adjust as a foreigner though. Too much pressure for me.
@@edznyc @Eddie Chan China is entirely driven by pragmatism. They can officially switch from leninism to anarchism, then back to leninism witihin a decade. Lin Biao was labeled a far-left demon then labeled a far-right demon just one month later by the same state-owned press in 1971. They arrested students singing L'internationale while officially singing it in national celebrations. It's rather funny.
He's absolutely correct. Modelling a society after China would create a worldwide dystopian nightmare. He's doubly correct- we need a new paradigm, something better than what we have currently.
Indeed - even the Chinese and the CPC are tired of repeating this: "WE ARE NOT DESIRING TO MAKE OTHERS COPY OUR SYSTEM! YEAH, IT WORKED FOR US, BUT IT WILL NOT WORK FOR YOU!" Even Mao, HoChiMihn, and Fidel Castro admited that, for Christ's sake!
Okay! So the only reason Indian subcontinent is ever splitted is due to British and it's time for them to fight a civil war and unify ? Or maybe it's the same propoganda that, Tibet was part of China in some BC and CCP has every right to invade Tibet.
@@UwUO-OUwU A large reason why the Indian subcontinent is split is because of religious division exacerbated by the British, who used "divide and conquer" techniques to rule. If there is a diplomatic way to reunify India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, that would be great because the new country would be much stronger than each country would be on its own. China was right to invade Tibet because that area was ruled by a feudal theocracy. Approximately 95% of the people were serfs or slaves. The PRC's annexation of Tibet would best be described as a liberation struggle, not imperialism.
'The West' espouses cultural and political pluralism in theory while resisting it in every practical way it can, engineering as much conformity- for instance 'Make America safe' against this or that 'threat'- as it can tolerate without entirely undermining the credibility of its theory. The difference in the official perspectives between China and America is a reflection of historical circumstances. Whereas the American Civil War lasted four years and the losers retained significant influence, in China it lasted nearly fifty nightmare years and the losers were marginalized to a far greater degree. The Chinese Communist Party will never relinquished this advantage.
Dude you guys are literally the disease of the west speaking. LITERALLY. Its ironic. If the west ever finds its demise, it will be made possible by empty minds such as yours that say "UUHH what if our neighbors are literal psycho's, its just their culture we have to accept it hur dur"
Just look at China 70 years ago. A very poor country raped by Japan. By anyone's standards, China is a success. The question is, could China have succeeded without hard-line governments?. It's doubtful, given which undeveloped large country in 1945 - is now thriving like China, almost touching first world standards. Not Brasil, not India, not South Africa, not Mexico, not Indonesia. And before anyone comes back with Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan etc, remember none of those countries developed under democracy. Democracy is a stage that is achieved after industrialization, not during. Democracy being like socialism in that sense, being a stage - rather than an ideology that can be rolled out anywhere. Well you can roll it out anywhere, but it won't succeed in countries without a proletariat. I mean show me a successful, non industrialized or even semi-industrialized democracy? And even the West only took on full universal suffrage after becoming fully industrialized. Throughout the 19th century Britain and France were not democracies in any modern sense.
it absolutely could have: see post-85 taiwan. it's a social democracy. mao also shot china in the foot. in the 50s and 60s, the cultural revolution completely dismantled everything. doctors as peasants, peasants as doctors, not enough food, too much steel, it was a complete fucking disaster in which millions died and it retarded chinese industrial development for 25 years.
@@SomeLazyDr Post 85, Taiwan was already industrialized, by the time it had embraced democracy, it was fully developed. If Taiwan had embraced democracy during its development stage, it could have been held back by infighting, protests, strikes etc. Democracy seems to retard development in developing countries - Brasil, Venezuela, India, South Africa. Democracy in developing countries becomes a by-word for crime and corruption, and general instability. Even if Jiang Kai-Shek had been victorious in the Civil War, it's doubtful China would have become a democracy in the 40s. After all, Taiwan went through forty years of Marshal Law, with tens of thousands of communists and Leftists executed or imprisoned. Marshal Law only ending in 87, once Taiwan had become a First World developed country, thanks in large part to the Marshal Plan and very favorable trading terms with the West, Which begs the question, would Taiwan have got such sweetheart deals without the threat of communism? So in a round about way, communism was responsible for Taiwanese development. Moreover, would China had received such favorable trading terms without communism? So say what you like about Mao, he did create leverage for China and Taiwan regards Western aid and trade.
"The question is, could China have succeeded without hard-line governments?" Probably not since China has never had democracy in their 5000+ year history as a civilization, except for Hong Kong and Taiwan. The southern Han Chinese were bred to be a servile race to their northern rulers for over 1000 years after the fall of the Han Dynasty. Even the Ming Dynasty was ruled by descendants of northern steppe peoples. By the time Mao was in charge there were too many conflicts between provinces for Democracy to have been effective, and combined with bandit hordes hiding in the wilderness pretending to be monks he had to be hard-line. One of the main goals of Mao's Cultural Revolution was to being back the idea of a unified Han Chinese, even though the majority of China had interbred with the barbarians to the point that the original Han Chinese are effectively extinct. To that end he claimed that anyone living within Chinese borders are now Han Chinese; the same way Americans claim European and American Indian ancestry (Google "Amerimutt" for a laugh). Of course, Tibetans, Mongolians and Uyghurs don't count since they were annexed after the initial Cultural Revolution. TL;DR = No, because China doesn't know any other way.
@@donparkvideos I wouldn't say Costa Rica is a success, that is in terms of being a developed country. San Marino is a tiny tax haven. I said large country. And when did San Marino embrace democracy? Basically after industrialization, like Italy more generally.
@Johan Sahlin , i am not sure capitalism is doing americans that much good, unless they keep dreaming it is doing them good..do you have health insurance, by the way?
As you know, westerner, especially American have a magic skill called "redefine a word". If China or Chinese politics is not a tragedy, the common meaning of this word as we know, some western politicians can try to redefine "tragedy".
I really wish to see where China's meteoric growth leads to. Historically, such explosive economic boom has almost always lead to spectacular bust. The only problem is, the shockwave of such a large "bust" will pop everyone's drum.
I don't blame Zizek himself as much, as the Western commentariat and journalism on China, which informs his opinion, is dodgy to say the least. It should be noted though, that Zizek's opinions on China are mostly irrelevant, except for the occasional prescient observation, that the West is approaching similar authoritarian order. But Zizek's penchant for ironic paradoxes and random curious anecdotes makes his judgement on China mostly worthless.
His arguments became totally irrelevant when he argued that ”communism is good” because china became prosperous in the last 40 years, when the real reason why it became prosperous it’s the fact it renounced the disastrous Maoist and communist economic policies, and shifted towards an opened western inspired capitalist economy with the help of the USA.
He admits that is the case in the first three minutes of the video, and said that he says that as a joke in response to right wing Chinese communist concern.
And if you are not bombarded with political propoganda and has the habit of protesting everything it's better than democracies. I'll prefer any state with the system like Singapore.
Like, I felt bad for the person asking the question - she's asking for his advice on how the Hong Kong protest movement should orient itself, and he goes on a discussion about the success of capitalism in China.
He likes floating around different tendencies (including Marxism) and outright called himself "more of a Hegelian" once, but I believe he still wants Communism as an end goal.
And fall further down the rabbit hole of revisionism. If you are interested in communism there isn't a replacement for Marx&Engels. Don't go for 2nd hand sources.
There is another economic miracle which Zizek doesn't use as an example, but might be as significant as China's economic uptick: And that was Japan in the post 1945 world. Let's not forget the Liberal Democratic party of Japan was practically unopposed for 45 years in government and utilized heavy State-regulation in conjunction with targeted borrowing-lending schemes to raise Japan to the 3rd largest economy in the world for many, many years. By not allowing industry-sectors that were awash with capital to continue borrowing, and by lending capital to industries the Japanese government were keenly aware required capital to restart/grow, Japan's implicit, benign cartels of industry raised the standard of living far beyond what even the affluent of Shanghai, Hong Kong, and other Western-bastions of industry were capable of in China.
No matter whatever political background has been in japan, its safe to say that its elite capitalist industrialists have run japans economic development as an almost mini oligarchy.
These protests have been a catastrophe for the left in China. What's most discouraging is that if they protests had indeed been leftist in character, rather than vulgarly anti-Chinese-- say, if they had gone after the tiny group of oligarchs that dominate Hong Kong who were installed when the city literally sold out from under people's feet during the handover-- the SAR could be a foothold for mainland leftists and progressives of all kinds. But this was impossible, totally impossible, because up until two years ago "hong kongers" actually perceived themselves as diametrically and totally opposed to all forms of socialism and communism since so many of them were displaced there by various political upheavals in China. Now we have opportunistic political formations meant to shore up anti-Chinese nationalism that masquerade as traditionally left organizations. Far from forming alliances with people in the mainland, mainlanders are at best afraid of traveling to Hong Kong out of fear of being beaten and abused for their dialect or accent, at worst they want merciless, punitive action against them. Support who you want in this fight.
@@ZZFilm I've been coming to Hong Kong since '91 and in my experience they have always looked down on mainlanders, and still do very much. There is a strong racist undercurrent in all these protests. Although this racism is much stronger in Hong Kong, you will also find it to a lesser degree on the mainland side as cantoneese speaking Chinese also feel above mandarin speaking Chinese.
Dj Maze Yeahs. I have a lot of friends who live there or are from there and I mostly agree with you. I’m just saying that race probably isn’t the best word. “Class” sure. “Mainland” sure. But race just isn’t the right word, unless it’s Han against Manchurian, our Mongolian etc. That’s what I’m getting at.
@@ZZFilm It's definitely racism, and they are definitely against the Chinese (and in their mind now they are something else). For years before the protests HK'ers have been bullying mainland Chinese tourists visiting HK. Calling them all kind of names, so this idea that they are just against the CCP is very naive.
Dj Maze I hear you, but what you're describing is not based on race, since both groups are the same race. Call it bigotry or intolerance or maybe Hong Kongers are simply just A H0les, but it's not race based. No racism. Maybe they just don't like the sound of Mandarin, but then of course they'd also be treating the Taiwanese Chinese poorly as well.
Zizek, as most of his european socialists counterparts , fall in that old utopianism - I support a revolution until it happens, then I turn my back and start to condemn a revolucionary process that has to handle all of it's contradictions and resist imperialism intervention at the same time. His timid support for Hong Kong protesters is a clear sign of that - he acknowledges that the alternative for China's intervention is imperialist intervention - even so he hesitates to condemn a movement that is clearly in favor of western agenda. How can he be so naïve to be surprised at the Hong Kong protesters' support for Trump?
@sabahiya Well it isn’t necessarily socialism in China that has accomplished a lot, but opening up its market to the west. However, that inter played with their socialist government, which gave them much more control otherwise. Now we owe them debt. China is playing the capitalism game quite cautiously. They know about the federal reserve and debt-backed currency and everything else going on in the western world. As for the accomplishment, I think you should open your eyes and see what it looked like in the 1980’s. No other country has become a superpower as fast as China has. It is complex politics and the American media dumbs it down to “Communist China is bad”. Honestly, I think your comment is quite shallow-minded when compared to other conversations you could be having. It’s obvious to see what China has accomplished. However, you should be asking deeper questions like what are the implications, how would such rapid development affect their politics and socialistic governance, etc.
@sabahiya Lol, I need to ask if you are living in reality. It’s a common debate tactic to just ignore everything someone says, however you actually haven’t refuted that the living conditions for many Chinese people have gotten better. The people living in rural areas are still in need of better infrastructures, sure. However, are you really going to say those living in the major cities are still living in the same conditions as in 1912? It seems you are the one brainwashed by western media. Also keep coping “it hasn’t become a superpower”. Lol yeah, I noticed YOU were the one living in a fantasy world when you said that. Why is America and Donald Trump always attacking China? Lol not a superpower my ass. The fact of the matter is that the West saw the opportunities China could provide and greedily accepted their market after they made economic reforms with Deng Xiaoping. If you want to say that it goes both ways, fine it did go both ways. Also, I like how you view military power as a way to measure accomplishment. Is this why America has failing infrastructures while they continue to increase the military’s budget? Also, please provide me examples of “more and better growth” in other Asian countries. It seemed you forgot your own point of including military might. Who relies on America? Lol.
@sabahiya “China is now considered an emerging global superpower in economy, military, technology and diplomatic influence.[6][7][8][9][10][11] According to the 2019 Asia Power Index, Lowy Institute considers China as a superpower of Asia, ranked second behind the United States. Whilst China takes the lead on the parameters of economic resources, future resources, economic relationships and diplomatic influence across eight measures, it still ranks second on military capacity and cultural influence, only behind the United States.[12][13] Currently, China has been referred to as a "second superpower," with global power and influence on par with the United States.[14][15][16] China's challenging the United States for global predominance constitutes the core issue in the debate over the American decline.[17][18][19]”
@sabahiya The Qing dynasty at the time of its collapse? Or the “Qing Dynasty” in its entirety? The problem is that you keep changing your arguments. You say that at the beginning and then later on you say that it is as powerful as it was for the entirety of the Qing dynasty and then ask me what’s wrong. Make up your mind. China was largely a hermit kingdom and largely interacted through the Silk Road until foreign countries started to interfere which lead to consequences like the opium addiction. China had no power left near the end of the Qing dynasty. However, I wouldn’t be as rash as you to compare two entirely different generations, even at the peak of the Qing Dynasty. Everything is globalized and much more complicated than the politics China had back during the Qing dynasty. To be a superpower is to have influence all over the world. So basically what you’re saying to me is that China is still a largely hermit kingdom that has little say in global politics like during the Qing dynasty when no country even saw it as a major threat. You proved this point yourself. It fell from the inside out due to its poor cohesion. Yeah nice try, but I disagree with your analogy. Also, infrastructure is not everything, but it does matter. The public schools clearly need better funding especially in poor neighborhoods. The poor neighborhoods and “ghettos” are suffering and the US isn’t doing anything about it. Why do “we” (not even a Chinese apologist btw, just not as hypocritical as you) use infrastructure as an achievement? First, it is an achievement regardless of whatever you want to say. Your point doesn’t make any sense because you would probably be celebrating when an African village gets access to better facilities and clean water, or when the US built the transcontinental railroad. That means you are a hypocrite who just refuses to acknowledge that better infrastructures are an achievement only when it comes to China merely because many people have used this arguing point. Also, more people using a talking point doesn’t make it any less valid. Idk what to say to you man, you’re honestly brain dead if you don’t think improving infrastructure is an achievement. If you think that what they’ve built isn’t an accomplishment, then you are basically saying that no infrastructure that mankind has built are accomplishments. I could go on, but I honestly think you’re gonna lie and be a hypocrite and pretend like building better infrastructures aren’t an accomplishment and take what I said out of context. Also lol @ the spending money wisely part. Maybe the Scandinavian countries are, but US? Hah, it goes to corporate interests, military-industrial complex, etc. I could go on for a couple more paragraphs about the military-industrial complex but I really brought that up to come back to the military. The reason why I brought up the military in my last comment was because you went against your own point that other Asian countries are more successful and you linked military power with that. I think you can make the connection yourself. I never said military power wasn’t an accomplishment. I just brought up your hypocrisy in using that point and then saying other Asian countries are more successful. That’s not a point you should bring up when talking about the achievements of East Asian countries. Anyways I’m gonna go on a little tirade on the military-industrial complex since you can somehow justify that but not spending money on infrastructure. The US perpetuates war for monetary gain. You still stand by that? Here’s a list of the stuff they created for civilization use. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_inventions . You’ll notice that the internet was the last useful thing they’ve done. The point you’ve made is also stupid because the US can use the fund they put into the military to actually start inventing new technologies that aren’t for war. Why does it have to be through the military? Is that how you justify military spending? How much of an apologist are you? Can I see the faults in China? Yes. Can I also see that they’ve accomplished a lot? Yes. Poverty rates, illiteracy rates, etc. etc. etc. have all become better. I think you don’t know just where China was back just 40 years ago. The rate they’ve grown is insane and I just don’t see why you would try arguing over what they’ve accomplished. Even you know how dumb of an argument that is because you keep talking about extraneous points. You talked about the military, how their government is autocratic, etc. I see their failures like their lack of democracy. However, I also give credit where it’s due. I can say for example that the internet wasn’t an accomplishment because it wasn’t invented for us but as a consequence of war. However, that’s a dumb argument and that’s what you sound like. Anyways, I rest my case for the moment as I have finals next week. Dumb decision to respond but I hate hypocrites.
@sabahiya Damn it bruh wait until my finals are over. But I think we can both agree that arguing over UA-cam comments trying to change a stranger's mind is dumb lol
He’s seemingly just a Marxist apologist. He rambled on but I think his rant can be summed up by his last point, that he doesn’t like China actions but doesn’t want them to be like the west
@@whythelongface64 he said he supported honk kong, that the CCP has done what the west did time ago and that how we are culpable of the same things they do. That people see the west as a a savior but in reality is the same monster painted in a different color, honkongers should stribe for something completely different
He had a stroke earlier where portions of his face become paralyzed. Wiping his nose was one of the uncontrollable ticks he picked up. He can't help it.
Most people spend their days at work,we are allienated from work because we are working for Capitalist authorities. Socialism will let us belong to our work place. Producing for us not them!
Right because Trump is putting dissidents in re education camps and killing people who disagree with them. Many people don't realise this but the people of regions which are now recently owned by the Chinese are getting that treatment from the Chinese dictatorship.
If trump was a dictator he would he silencing speech. The biggest culprit of speech silencing is left wing big tech companies. Facebook, google, and Twitter.
This is just what I said like 2 years ago, The system in china, even tho I don't like it, works better than ours, therefor, maybe we, as a society or species, are simply not clever, empathic or capable enough to own liberalism. I wouldn't want to live in an authoritarian society, but I think many people would actualy be better off, even tho they won't aknowledge it, since those people, sadly, also are those who are blinded and manipulatet the most by our system.
@@cf6713 China's foreign policy is arguably better, even though it's not ideal. There is no Chinese equivalent of the overthrow of Libya where literal slavery came back There is also publicly funded healthcare, which, though not great, is better for those who are under the middle class compared to the US where medical bankruptcy is the most common form of bankruptcy. Despite the corrupt authoritarian nature of the justice system in China, they imprison much less then the US system which is influenced by for profit prison corporations. Chinese government ownership of all land puts a lid on any potential housing bubble and the homeownership rate is much higher in China compared to the US.
@@xenoblad Have you never heard of the Uyghurs? Copy and paste these into any non Chinese search engine and see what pops up... "Uyghur camp" "Uyghur labor" "Uyghur Islamic culture" If we could all go back in time, knowing what we all know now, we'd probably speak up for all slaves, and lost cultures, and native people from across the world who lost their history to an invasive culture. You can no longer speak up for the departed and forgotten, so why not speak up for the people who are now being silently crushed right before your very eyes.
Dalym Chinese foreign policy is rather limited to even compare, however there have been many Chinese failures. I think the near future will be even more telling. Medical bankruptcy in the US is a factor of going bankrupt while having medical debt, not due to the medical debt. This is a major distinction. Research and advancement of medical technologies, and practices are 2nd to none. Only 10% of prisons in the US are private for profit businesses. To blame the high prison rate on that is completely disingenuous. Freedom isn’t free it costs a buck 0 five. I don’t see how home ownership = better. Freedom and ease of movement has always been a key driver of success. You also mention the system has stopped any bubble from forming however it has also produced under housing and lower standard housing. I do recognize that development is an ongoing practice and the positive changes being made
I think Chinese people knows In their hearts that this period of economic development with market economy is just a way to develop socialism, it’s just temporary
Okay, but what makes you think the state and its agents will want to give up any power when it’s reached peak capitalism? Of course, I don’t think any regime will last forever and will eventually crumble or be overthrown, but when the time comes, will they necessarily make the transition to communism? Or to something else, perhaps something even worse than the current state of affairs?
@@metaphoricdirigible1499 It's not really Capitalism though... It's a bit complicated, I recommend checking out "Bay Area415"s channel, especially this video: ua-cam.com/video/ZLDV9A4JNJg/v-deo.html
I'm always sceptical about the "communism helped china become better" thing. The united states and europe didn't need communism to get to where they are today. I think technological advancements and trade with non-communist countries are more to thank than communism for china's development, if what china is and was can even be called communist at all. I'd also like to know how the west incorporates social credit in "a subtle way". As far as I know, especially in europe, nobody is blocked from getting a loan, going to college, etc. Probably different in the US. And even if there was some version of it, integrated "subtly", it isn't as draconian. Neither in europe nor america do you get any more or less opportunities for, for example, praising or criticising the government.
I agree with you and I would add that Chinese authoritarianism and imperialism should be a much bigger target of criticism by the left. And ps.: love Max Stirner
The US and Europe had centuries of expansion and exploitation to reach their current prosperity. Its prosperity built on the backs of slaves, indentured servants, colonial workers, etc etc
All those public goods you mentioned have been commodified and you obviously don't see it. You get education but then you live almost in debt peonage and social control. And, you just think about one thing: why doesn't China allow its capital market to open up to the global investors as Trump has been trying so hard to do that, the neoliberal servant that he is? I am not defending China but making a point about economic reality
I have a lot of respect for Slavoj Zizek, but he keeps mentioned China's economic growth in terms of communism. That is flat wrong. It was when they abandoned communism (in practice) when the growth started. It was the market reforms and the introduction of capitalism that made them wealthy. They kept their authoritarian single party dictatorship government, but they embraced a market economy. I lived in China for 5 years (my avatar photo was taken their). China is the only country on earth where the desire to start your own business and be successful rivals the US. I think China needs to be discussed in terms of Fascism not Communism. I mean that in the literal since as opposed to the pejorative in which it is commonly used in western society. Forget about whether Fascism or Communism is good or bad, that not the point. The point is what term can you use to accurately describe the situation. Communism died in China with Mao. If you look up a dictionary definition of China, they meet it perfectly.
We had other authoritarian capitalisms in the world and they didn't work that well. China worked because they also mixed in some true communism in there. More than half of the means of production are owned by the State, and the Party has representatives in all companies, and can shut them down tomorrow. Calling this capitalism is far fetched.
China isnt trying to export their model of governance, this is what west doesnt understand. The chinese governance with chinese characteristic if exported will fail, its tailored for its ppl and its country itself. China believes that governance of a country should be tailor to the needs of ppl and country. China not going to rule the world, even if they tried they will fail miserably, coz the days of becoming a roman empire is now and far gone. No country will accept it
never heard a western leftist saying we should replicate the Chinese model. i personally only go as far as to say that China is effectively countering US imperialism and i am thankful for that. China is a slap on america's face on a geopolitical level.
@@TheBanderson22 liberal democracy has deteriorated to such a degree that even americans are doubting its legitimacy. maybe fix you own mess first an then talk shit about other countries.
I think it's important to be mature about facing reality, tuning down the rhetoric and acknowledging the astoundingly positive economic results achieved under the Chinese authoritarian system of governance. But the mere acknowledgment of these successes do not necessarily imply acknowledgement of any continuing future successes of the same magnitude, less magnitude or success of any kind. In other words, just because corporate fascism (Socialism with Chinese Characteristics) worked fantastically well for China in the past few decades does not mean it will continue to work into the indefinite future. The mere acknowledgment of these successes also do not imply that the West or any other civilizational orders should adopt and emulate the current Chinese system of governance as some sort of a generally applicable system which it clearly isn't. The Chinese government has shown no interest of propagating its system of governance outside of its own country. Any Western fear of such propagation in my view is just self projection based upon Western Civilization's own past and present behaviors. Finally to the professor's point, any criticism launched at China, currently the designated Boogie Man of the Western Order, should be tempered with some self reflection and self awareness of one's own shortcomings and hypocrisies.
It isn't about China propogating it's system outside it's borders. It's about Western leaders deciding such a system is in their best interest as it allows them to centralize power and use technology, force and propaganda to keep their populace in servitude with 0 repercussions. Which they most certainly will, if they get the opportunity.
You are looking at it through a purely economic lense, at least in that comment. The authoritarian side of china is the problem and the side of it most people in the west find unpalettable. Their system might well be better in terms of running a society, economy sucessfully etc, but if the price to use it is the humanity of an entire nation is it worth it?
China is a country with 2200years as one country there are so many different things in this country that you will never understand. unless you grow up there. the deep rooted culture and mentality had never left China and its people . that is the power which hold this country for over 2200years. no matters it under emperor or republic or communism regimes for any type social structure. the only way to know China is put youself into that country and talk with the locals. believe what western media said only makes you blind about China.
China literally wants world economic domination. They're busy indebting countless countries in Africa and the Middle East, and some Western countries as well. Wtf are you talking about lmao
First of all since opening China is not communist anymore. Second thing - Zizek claims he supports Hongkong protests but at the same time he suggested that stoping liberalization was great. So actually he doesn't support Hongkong protests. Third thing - there is a difference between doing something softly and doing it roughly. You really can't say that China is just slightly different from the West. It's significantly different. Definitely more austere state. And last thing - what lifted people out of poverty was not communism but freeing the market and technology transfer from the West.
first thing, he's against political pluralism and naive liberalism, not liberalization. secondly, he's saying that authoritarian capitalism is what lifted people out of poverty, not communism.
It's about playing one's roles in today's world, Chinese couldn't producing high value-added products as a third world country back then, in order to thrive economically people back then had to work hard, it is not the case until recent year because the distribution scale has been tilted unbalanced for awhile, the recent Xi's policy is about giving back to the society and help the lower class people to be wealthy and thriving as well, zizek calling out China's system to be imperfect but failed to realize his own knowledge limitation, what china had gone through was impossible for almost every other third world country to do in the world, I mean at the end of the day is easy to criticize but I do wish he can provide some better answer with the fact in mind that capitalists all over the world are always influencing and threatening a country's dimension of policy, whenever you slow down they will suck your soul out for dinner. Mao had to do what he did and Chinese people did suffer but Chinese did successfully industrialize and had strategic weapon defense without exploiting other countries or made commitments and let higher power step their foots in during the process, I do agree his point at this stage we shouldn't treat our workers as bad as before and a lot of things have to changed, exploitation needs to be countered, but I don't buy the idea China and Singapore model to be as horrified as he described, because he can't grasp that there is a reason that Chinese and Singapore(used to lead by Chinese descendants and with large percentage of population of Chinese descendant) system worked for themselve, because they shared culture attributes which are things like unity, reasonable, trusting in professional selection system are and common prosperity, while west valued democracy, freedom and individual rights to extreme. It's fine being a pessimist, but I do think it's the best we have at the moment, if at some points it is doomed to fail, and revolution doesn't come, and humanity cannot persist, we can only say we already did our best, we are just not smart enough to see past our greed.
Ok, i need something clarified: he said "sorry, communism didn't fail, look at China", but he also said "the chinese succeeded by combining unbridled capitalism with authoritarianism" (so basically authoritarian capitalism). Do these two statements not contradict eachother? He has said this more than once, so i don't think he misspoke.
Also when he points that China achieved economic success by unbridled capitalism, he seems upset by that in a way that implies that that is a sign that Chinese renounced communism in some way. It seems like he’s conceding that under pure communist policies, economic development is impossible and that he would have preferred that China had remained purely socialist even if it meant not experiencing the material progress it did. It’s actually extremely confusing: he decries competitive capitalism but praises its economic results, he decries the Chinese authoritarian system but still thinks they made the right call in not opening the country to political pluralism.
You know when I heard his bullcrap about social credits in CN I was like:What? I lived here for about 20 years and I never heard bout dat,I'm a Chinese, dude...You seriously want to convince me with that point?
This comes down to understanding Marxism and communism in general. Marxism is a school of thought while communism is a form of society. Instead of advocating for communism as some sort of alternative, much of Marxist thought is that communism is inevitable. It has less to do with whether communism is better than capitalism and rather that all societies will eventually become communist. Marx called this historical materialism, and it is a form of Hegelian dialectics. Think about how Western countries have shifted from the unbridled capitalism of the 18th and 19th centuries to a much more state-regulated form of capitalism. There now exists protected labor unions, working conditions laws, company growth regulations, and government subsidies that never existed in the past. Under historical materialist thought, economies will continue to evolve. For example, economies might go from true capitalism to regulated capitalism to state-controlled capitalism to state-controlled socialism to socialism to communism. Productive ability drives the progression to communism. Communism will not function in a society that does not have an excess of resources. For money and class to disappear, there must be so many resources that people don't need to trade for goods. They can just take them. In a society of "infinite" resources, there is no poor or rich. As we become more productive, ie the means of production improve, we become more capable of communism. Perhaps communism does work, but it would require a society with productive capabilities 300 years more advanced than ours currently. Therefore, state capitalism, which was/is China's form of government is closer to communism than what the West has. China's economy has more features of communism, and their economic success with state capitalism proves that more aspects of communism work in today's society. This can be seen as proof of historical materialism.
Many, if not most, of his takes on AES countries lack any type of consistency, Marxist materialist basis, or any other type of analytic rigour. He should stick to analysing batman films...
He seems incapable of completing a sentence. He gives the expectation that he's about to offer an opinion on some topic and then veers off into something else, often a joke or anecdote of some sort that then leads to an apology and a promise that he won't be much longer, although he doesn't seem able to curtail his endlessly discursive and confusing monologue.
@@victorgrauer5834 he's trying to find different ways to get the ideas across so that it resonates with as many people as possible I think, but I understand the frustration, Terence Mckenna did the same shit sometimes lol
The thing is about him saying china uplifting so many people out of poverty with authoritarianism and capitalism. Well Taiwan and many other countries achieved similar growth without authoritarianism
Really?? You better check the history. The Asian dragons grew based on authoritarian principle before they democratise. Britain didn’t advocate free trade until it was able to grow upon mercantilistic principles. Your dichotomy blinds you from thinking soberly.
@@joelin3049 Well, lets talk about every other country in the world that doesn't have that model then? Begin with Japan perhaps? www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/gdp-growth-rate. Their boom didn't have the model you speak of, they did pretty well it seems.
@@mr.goldfarmer4883 Any discussion of Japan without considering the US is insufficient. Japan was allowed to grow with the US permission and fell because the US intervened [see: hbr.org/1998/01/reinterpreting-the-japanese-economic-miracle]. The quote widely known in the HBR article above is this: "A key element of Japanese success was the keiretsu. By banding into keiretsu-huge business groups that link industrialists, banks, and trading companies through reciprocal ownership of stock and long-standing exclusive relationships-individual companies gained financial strength and connections that allowed them to undercut foreign and domestic rivals. Their mission was to gain market share rather than accumulate short-term profits, and they aggressively entered high-growth sectors with long-term potential. The concerns of consumers and outside stockholders, who had few other outlets for their earnings besides low-interest savings accounts, were secondary." I am not suggesting that this passage necessarily implies that Japan is authoritarian, but it definitely shows a high degree of planning and centralization. Keiretsu would not have been left with so much power had the state not been strong. Research on Japan has pointed out that the Japanese government has had a quite centralized and clan-based system. My Japanese friends tell me what has always been happening behind the scenes. But you can also read up about this [see: link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137550453_4].
The economy of Taiwan is in the toilet.Most of the growth was achieved during the reign of Jiang jingguo,the successor of his father dictator.That make him a dictator too
You're an idiot. That's his tick. His points are clear: the Chinese government is in some ways the anti-thesis of Western 'democracies' and in other ways the West is hypocritical about their criticism. We mustn't take them for a model but we mustn't seek relief with our own inept leadership. Though i'm sure you know much better, Professor.
Deng Xiaoping wanted to be Park Chun-hee，Pinochet or Lee Kuan Yew in China.His wish was to make China the next Singapore or Japan.However，because of the disaster happened in the soviet union in 1990s（by the way，I stand for CCP in the event in 1989，that riot could have dragged the nation into chaos），Deng could never abandone CCP‘s original ideology（at least publicly），which has become a “heavy burden” in today’s China.China today combines with authoritarian communism，liberalism， nationalism and even confucianism.This kind of state never exists before in human history，and no one could predict how the state would develope in the future……As some people say，China has entered “deep water” zone in both economic and ideology area，one single mistake would cause a horrible consequence…
@Christopher Grant in so many people‘s opinions the events only took place in beijing in that summer，in fact in 1989 students in most chinese cities went on the streets and tried to make a point，beijing was the the most famous one.that is why i didnt mention tiananmen square.
just noticed how he did not answer the question at all, if we should see the nationalist tendencies in the Hong Kong protests as part of the global rise of nationalism
the point is completely missed when ppl focus on and criticize nationalist elements of the HK protest, as if they aren't also fighting CCP fomented mainland Chinese nationalism, just the same.
Not comparable. International nationalism mostly refers to right wing populism. In Hong Kong, it means people feel more Hong Konger than Chinese (unlike you might think, cultures are different and people should not have a racial duty to a given government) and wanted to protect their promised rights, which they have completely lost as of today. There were no right wing policies demanded, or basically anything else rather than keep the promise and investigate police brutality.
can you give me any illuminating examples? I'm not trying to be a rude person on youtube, but I've watched a bunch of zizek videos in the past weeks and by the end of the video, I almost always feel like he hasn't really answered the question. often he will begin or close with a joke or an anecdote, but I really struggle to find any strong arguments or clear theses here. in this video he flat-out didn't answer the question either...
@@g-radiation7154 Got you. Yes he might not answer the question directly but in the broad sense of things you will gain some fuzzy insight into the topic he is talking about or you will get some general direction of where he is heading. Here he was trying to clarify the criticism of nationalism in Hong Kong. He pointed out the fact that china has a different way of doing things and we criticize them but they have good results to show for. They have uplifted many people from poverty in a way no country has ever done while being authoritarian with unfettered capitalism which is disdained in the West and the fact that they can combine both and achieve so much is mind boggling. So his point is that the lens with which we criticize them might be distorted.
@@abibnoor thanks for your reply. as far as I understood it, though, the question was how HK nationalism relates and compares to other kinds of nationalisms around the world. zizek answered that mainland China/the PRC has a unique system which, tragically, works really well in economic terms and has lifted many people out of poverty. therefore we have to be careful criticising China. the question was not about criticising China, though. so yeah, I don't see how he answered the question
@@g-radiation7154 I guess cause if China were an obvious "evil tyrant" then it's easy to see HK as fighting the good fight against an oppressor. However, since China has won the 'most improved award' on collectivist, economic grounds, it suggests that HK nationalism may not be as obviously justified and therefore perhaps has populist ulterior motives. This is a murky and round-about way of implying that though. I do wonder if it really is the biggest economic leap relative to a country's size and starting condition of poverty though; rates of progress might be faster with more low hanging fruit? Also, what does the leap looks like in comparison to the progress of other countries if measured on a diverse range of metrics: wealth, health, education, violence, freedom, environmentalism, innovation, art and cultural contributions, hedonic happiness, udemonic happiness? How does the comparison change with timescales, the "tortoise vs the rabbit" situation?
Rather than to say we are nationalistic, I would rather say we fight for self determination . We are simply dissent, and this act itself whether senseless or well throughout, its value lies in action for such action carries with it dire consequences. We should accept the most resistance and dissident movements adopt the antagonistic view of the oppressors, in the case of HK this is ridiculous, we are fighting against a Capitalist system that is enshrined and protected by our city;s constitution yet our oppressors are Communists in name. So where does that leave us? Action and willingness to sacrifice. The rest is just Mumbo Jumbo.
3:11 it is still fundamentally different, people do not, people realsie the difference, there should be an understanding of distance, what is approached in 'the west' is different
"Should we adopt the China model? absolutely not! Do we have an alternative? I don't know..." For a long time I have the impression that Slavoj's attitude towards "China" (politically) time and time again has been dictated by at least a smallest dose of fear for upsetting his Western liberal fanbase if not his lack of more comprehensive observation of this country, to the extent that he has been for some time repetitively bringing up paradoxes concerning Chinese issues as shown in the aforementioned quote and : "authoritarian capitalism lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty" , "sympathy for HK protesters but appalled by their seeing Trump as Saviour" so on and so on.... I'd rather hope that he's been "pervertedly" subtle in order not to be seen as "yet another average Marxist troll", but even that is still way too speculative if not cowardly for someone like him.....
@@peterhooper2643 These are not really paradoxical, these are actually rhetorics Zizek employed to keep his fanbase more at peace (I know China's probably done sth right BUT.... ) and conveniently to keep himself from a more serious discourse of real China, of which he has quite limited knowledge and experience. So in a sense, he might be just subtly being modest (I don't really know China as much as u hope, so probably I'll make another joke about her), which however could in term coincide with existing prejudice amongst his audience (see? even Zizek sees China in a generally negative light)....
@@alexhe7512 yeah I get that your saying he uses this as a way to avoid something but the paradox still exist right. Even if he is pointing it out to avoid making a definitive statement the paradox still exists... I mean unless you think China is entirely good or entirely bad. This makes me curious what your stand on China is if you think it's a simple matter?
@@peterhooper2643 No I won't say China is entirely good or bad even as a Chinese living in China, the complexity of reality is undeniable but I'd say let's give credit where credit is due... What u call paradoxes, I call play of word and syntax (or starting ground), change A BUT B to B BUT A (Do we have an alternative way out? I don't know BUT the China model seems to be doing pretty fine....; I'm really appalled by HK protesters admiration for Trump as Saviour even though their so called fight for freedom should not be dismissed), replace some near-cliché labels like “authoritarian regime” to "Centralised Management", "Freedom" to "Irresponsible Individualism" so on and so on, and see how that play out....
@@alexhe7512 ahhh... Yes I see what you are saying. I think zizeks issue with China is that he sees it as an inevitability if we cannot describe a better model. As he points out the "market solutions" of the west will collapse in the face of global pandemic/ climate change/ food shortages and a unified response that can be centrally planned will be the only viable model that survives. So I don't think he feels like he needs to advocate for the Chinese models even though it posses some positive attributes because it will become the new hegemon in the near future. I believe he thinks it more important to emphasize what is wrong with that model, and why it is important to imagine a new model instead of blindly adopting the existing Chinese model. The problem with China seems to be that it isn't communist enough, in the sense that there exists a huge class of workers and a small class of rich elites
His main point is we shouldn't believe the naive view of liberalism. He doesn't like what China has been doing but his ultimate question is where are the other options. Besides, he's right not to comment on Hong Kong since the West has been totally misled by the media. People in the West should reflect on the postcolonial condition of Hong Kong instead of making up terms like "Chinese imperialism". If you learn some basic history, you should know the issue of Hong Kong is a product of British colonialism. And China's sovereignty over Hong Kong stays at the heart of the Chinese notion of their nation.
Seems like you don’t know much about history of Hong Kong after all, but it’s forgivable since hyphenated history is taught in mainland China that makes every attempt at blaming internal problems on the west and fostering ultranationalist sentiments. An effective anti-corruption institution ICAC, separation of powers and rule of law was instituted during British “colonial” rule, making Hong Kong a big successful city with freedoms of speech, human rights and a trustworthy banking system. 30 years after the handover, Chinese have interfered and corrupted Hong Kong’s judicial system, clamped down on human rights, press freedoms and use the hk international banking system for money laundering and tax evasion. It’s no wonder Hong Kong people preferred the old colonial years to the current Chinese regime. In colonial years, people could truly voice out through district and legislative councils, unlike the current Beijing controlled functional constituencies which in reality is just a rubber stamp parliament.
Meanwhile Korea, Malaysia, Japan, Singapore were able to raise poeple out of poverty ...and much higher btw, with capitalist approach and without totalitarian dictatorship.
Western left intellectuals know the problem of China, but they choose to explore more fundamental problem within global capitalism, in which the protests in HK, brutality of HK Police force and the sovereign oppression on HK society mean relatively trivial to the structural crisis. To HK people who protest and are against the sovereign , those western intellectuals were just expressing their indifference to the current issues in Asia.
They do it to the homeless in England. If you prove yourself to a key worker that your not mad and can tidy your room they then allow you to have a rental contract at a certain rate. They want to make sure that your not "antisocial" or "mental" and these housing assoiciations are in fact goverment funded and accountable to themselves unless you can take them to court.
The problem is that Marxism lost its roots and original meaning back in the early 20th century. What the USSR and later China did, was neither socialist nor was it marxist. They simply declared it as such. Socialism/marxism/communism is not when the state owns property and does stuff. That is state capitalism.
@@vinnchan7631 Oh please, stop making such weak excuses for them. It just shows you have the moral compass of a psychopath. Do you even think before you type? Their government views millions of their own people as potential Assange's and persecutes them on the spot. Virtually oppressing everybody by social credit scores, making freedom of movement, free speech and the right to assemble absolutely impossible. Not to mention the genocides and ethnic cleanings they are still committing to this day inside their own borders and are now closing in on HK. Know the difference
@@vinnchan7631 So you lost the argument and now you are salty and going adhom? You could have at least attempt to misdirect and move the goal post first like all you leftist ideologue cultists do.
Was there some basic starting point, let say zero, and did China from there have some meteoric rise under communism? Or did China after Communism have industrial depression and rural famine during the Great Leap Forward and so after communism the starting point perhaps from zero went to -50. and then now it has an meteoric rise and lets say it' s at 100. I think people just give China credit for the -50 to 100 meteoric rise, but they should actually measure from the zero point to the 100 level. I'm trying to ask you if people don' t sneakily leave out the level 0 to level -50 part ?
Stable government with a long-term planning is a key for success in this capitalistic society. The problem of western democracy is that we are divided and trying to destroy each other just to win next election. In this environment it is hard to make any long term planning. For example just take a look what happened with Obama care after Trump took the office. I sadly agree that Chinese model just works better.
Better in terms of economic growth. As we know, economic growth doesn't correlate with a focus on people's rights and well-being. China is the same cancerous growth as the USA, just more efficient and resilient.
Actually that's completly wrong. China creates such vast wealth and income disparities that it's hurting it's economy a great deal. This isn't a humanitarian concern, or at least not just that. A capitalist economy is only as strong as it's aggregate cash flow and poor people just spend more of their money than the rich.
I've seen this argument of unity a lot and I always though it one of the surefire ways to show you that someone doesn't understand politics. What the people making it miss is that democracy isn't a competency test, democracy is an accountabilty test. The same power struggles, political disagreements and changes of who has the upper hand exist in all political power structures, democratic or not. Democracy is just a way of ensuring they happen as non-violently and smoothly as possible and that winnng them requires working, at least indirectly, for the common good. It just works. As is proven by the immense statistical correlations it has with human rights, economic prosperity and average quality of life. Furthermore, this correlation works incrementaly in the dictatorship to democracy spectrum. The more democratic and politically free a country, the greater it's human development. Remember this, for every ten dollars a crooked politicians pockets a dictator pockets ten million, for every man killed in a democratic country a dictatorship executes a hundred and there isn't one isntance of human history that points to the other way.
@@willnash7907 I understand that also in one party state there are a lot of disagreements but I still believe that it is much easier to make long term planning. Just look at India democratic state which had 40 years ago similar GDP as China and today you can see a big difference in standard of living. Or the other good African example is Rwanda which was 30 years ago the worst place on earth and today it is much better then all neighboring countries. In my opinion stable government is one the reasons for their success.
@@matejeber91 I can't tell if you are being ironic or not, but just in case you are not... A one party state is a regime that forces it's leaders to be constantly paranoid about maintaining power. It incentivizes corruption for those in power, oportunism for those under them and oppression for the population. Worst of all, it necessitates class stratification, which is why there can never be a communist state in the original marxist definition without some democratic form of government. A dictatorship is essentially a swindle. Here is the "game" of the dictator: Use your underlings to control the army, control the army to stay in power, use the army to brutally tax your population, use that tax money almost exclusively to buy the loyalty of your underlings. If you try to divert money away for say, infrastructure,, then someone can promise that money to your underlings and now they have a reason to replace you. Which is really bad. Kim Jong Un doesn't let his people starve and funnel huge sums of money into rich supporters because he is the devil or because he wants to. He needs to funnel that money into his underlings to keep them compliant and ensure that they don't plot to replace him. This structure isn't just at the top either. Remember, running a state is a vast administrative challenge, it cant be run by a dictator and a dozen generals, bureaucrats and governors. Your underlings have their own underlings and so on and so on. From you to the grunts and footsoldiers. So there is no question of getting all of the best people to run the country dictorially because in the end the very structure of the dictatorship, the pyramid of wealth appropriation incentive system this forms will force their hand into acting like psychopaths and those that do not will swiftly lose to those that do. P.S. India has huge problems that it would have under almost any system and it is essentially a banana republic in terms of legitimacy and structural integrity of it's democracy. Rwanda has had a genocide in it's recent past and owes it's growth exclusively to outside aid and whatever enlightenment values managed to take hold besides the odds... which by the way originate from a humanist and democratic world view. Both are cherry-picked examples. Generally democracies fare a lot better than dictatorships and the more democratic a country is the better it will do.
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
He's the opposite of asmr
hahahah
lmao ahahaha
Abrasive
@杨健 我不喜欢这种进步方案不适合就往回走的方式，儒教思想解决不了当代问题
@杨健 你可能说的是威权主义的功劳
Great video... I swear if the world was ending today he'd be saying "as you know the world is ending and so on and so on!"
Aaaaah you made me laugh so hard ahaha and so on and so on!
The thing is, is The HAARP Report guy, even, alive? Irma was headed 4 Mar-a-Lago the same time Branson had BO trapped on Necker Island. You do the math.
Venus is locked and loaded, X damage already laid in. See Dane Wigington 4 calibration, perhaps mental_boost as well. Astonishing boundary value conditions have been brought to light, for sure.
When you have / EXCLUSIVE / ACCESS / to the microphone - but have / NOTHING / TO / SAY / then anything is possible
@@boysiedent6149 predicate is sooo much more important to the sleep that remains uncalibrated in these exclamations focused on posts instead of pillars. Sigh.
This man mumbles so much, the UA-cam detected Vietnamese in dub lol.
Lmao
越南人震怒 😆
That's hilarious
Damn for me as Slavic guy talking with accent like this would be harder than actually using American accent.
Thats the thing, and he also talks with the same accent in French, German and so on and so on. And since its always harder to learn and understand the language if youre not learning how to pronounce it properly, it just shows how much more effort he had to put in to be able to converse fluently in all these languages.
I love his accent and thoughts
I think it's not only the accent, but also the speech impediment and the cadence with which he speaks.
I love how Zizek answers whatever he wants to every question he gets. Boss. He answers clearly about what he knows and doesn't try to make up an answer
^ This is simply ideology.
That was a clear answer?
Doesn’t it make him an asshole?
Man do I wish this guy could keep a train of thought going smoothly. By the time he's done talking I can neither agree, nor disagree with him
That's the point with zizek
I mean why do you think he likes Hegel so much hahaha
He just doesnt answer or say anything concrete
He's describing reality and human subjectivity to the best of his ability. Both of which are very confusing. Once you get tuned in to his wavelength and are familiar with the concepts, you can most often discern a point.
He is most valuable for me in that his contrarian positions on lots of things tend to cause a satori moment where I see the other half of an issue I was blind to. Things can be two things at once 😉
If he had a clear output everytime, you'll soon find out how ridiculous some of his points are.
I’m from HK, and I love China. Western scholars and media has never talked about the 120+ protests happened in HK when Britain ruled it. CIA funded so many students in HK to riot. Yet, we see USA can even provide legal presidential progress on their land
Thank you for telling the truth!
Fun off you CCP little shit
Posted one day ago, broken english(a bit), baseless claim about CIA funded protests and 50 likes on a video from half a year ago.
Totally legit.
Just kidding, you are not foolling anyone Winnie the Pooh
@Bhum Brahmavira Yes, cuz mao did his best fucked all types of capitalists in their asses. What scares us the most is that capitalists stopped running away from China, but now Chine swamps with all kinds of capital all over the world.
@Bhum Brahmavira so you guys arent choosing to believe a real Honk kong person? yeah let those trash escape to other country their no more a child their criminal after what have they done to the community and traitors collusion with foreign forces your good America is also involed training these motherfucker ,calling it Democracy Revolution? Bullshits these riot just killed some civilian destroying building and public utilities, here's source ua-cam.com/video/Zi1Gj3_cJSI/v-deo.html I don't care if you guys believe it or not just fuck off you guys know nothing
To sum it a bit up, his main point is: "and so on..."
Followed by: you know.
AND SO ON, AND SO ON
the most important part of his philosophy
So on 😌
You know?
Be serious and so on
Is it zižek or a Vonnegut novel?
The simple but always ignored fact is that China does not weigh ideology pretty high. It‘s guilded by pragmatism and focus on praxis.
@Christopher Grant People don't read or try to educate themselves on basic definitions. Frustrating to say the least.
Very pragmatic the control & banning of literature, novels or academic stuff that does not promote their principles or ideology.
The same pragmatic delusions you guys have about yourselves too.
@Christopher Grant china is absolutely ideologically driven, however pragmatic some policies seem to be... counter to the original point made where it's not ideology, rather pragmatism that drives china.
@Christopher Grant However singapore is kinda great. A lot of productivity with that if you just stick to the rules and work hard. I found it hard to adjust as a foreigner though. Too much pressure for me.
@@edznyc @Eddie Chan China is entirely driven by pragmatism. They can officially switch from leninism to anarchism, then back to leninism witihin a decade. Lin Biao was labeled a far-left demon then labeled a far-right demon just one month later by the same state-owned press in 1971. They arrested students singing L'internationale while officially singing it in national celebrations. It's rather funny.
He's absolutely correct. Modelling a society after China would create a worldwide dystopian nightmare. He's doubly correct- we need a new paradigm, something better than what we have currently.
We set up Ministry of Truth, Love and Peace.
@@riceboybebop7018 i hope thats a joke
@@MrMajsterixx its a 1984 reference
Indeed - even the Chinese and the CPC are tired of repeating this:
"WE ARE NOT DESIRING TO MAKE OTHERS COPY OUR SYSTEM! YEAH, IT WORKED FOR US, BUT IT WILL NOT WORK FOR YOU!"
Even Mao, HoChiMihn, and Fidel Castro admited that, for Christ's sake!
I've heard Slavoj been called a lot of things, but "doctor" is a first 😂
He has two doctorates
Hi sniffer
@@yannhahn5536 coke sniffs 🥺
@@edlvsprt5071 yes and he's a professor, I've just never heard him addressed as "doctor"
@@redacted5035 he has a condition. I wish people would be kind enough to stop making fun of that
At the end of the interview:
Zizek: Hereksh your microphone backsh
Host: Yeah, you can keep that
this cracked me up dead🤣🤣🤣🤣
Chinese imperialism? The only reason HK was ever not part of China was due to British imperialism.
Okay! So the only reason Indian subcontinent is ever splitted is due to British and it's time for them to fight a civil war and unify ?
Or maybe it's the same propoganda that, Tibet was part of China in some BC and CCP has every right to invade Tibet.
@@UwUO-OUwU A large reason why the Indian subcontinent is split is because of religious division exacerbated by the British, who used "divide and conquer" techniques to rule. If there is a diplomatic way to reunify India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, that would be great because the new country would be much stronger than each country would be on its own.
China was right to invade Tibet because that area was ruled by a feudal theocracy. Approximately 95% of the people were serfs or slaves. The PRC's annexation of Tibet would best be described as a liberation struggle, not imperialism.
3:35 one of the best AND SO ON in the history
It is confirmed you have to say it twice
Why does he sound like a robot just then?
I love Zizek but Jesus I wish he’d answer the questions instead of reciting which of his 5 minute speeches is closest to the topic of the question.
'The West' espouses cultural and political pluralism in theory while resisting it in every practical way it can, engineering as much conformity- for instance 'Make America safe' against this or that 'threat'- as it can tolerate without entirely undermining the credibility of its theory. The difference in the official perspectives between China and America is a reflection of historical circumstances. Whereas the American Civil War lasted four years and the losers retained significant influence, in China it lasted nearly fifty nightmare years and the losers were marginalized to a far greater degree. The Chinese Communist Party will never relinquished this advantage.
To be honest the west just hates anyone who doesn't beleive in their same ideas, except for china of course
Dude you guys are literally the disease of the west speaking. LITERALLY. Its ironic. If the west ever finds its demise, it will be made possible by empty minds such as yours that say "UUHH what if our neighbors are literal psycho's, its just their culture we have to accept it hur dur"
"And so on and so on" = "Roughly speaking"
😂😂😂
or "and so on and so forth"
", you know..?"
precisely my friends told me this .•°
hahahahahahah brilliant
Just look at China 70 years ago. A very poor country raped by Japan.
By anyone's standards, China is a success.
The question is, could China have succeeded without hard-line governments?.
It's doubtful, given which undeveloped large country in 1945 - is now thriving like China, almost touching first world standards.
Not Brasil, not India, not South Africa, not Mexico, not Indonesia.
And before anyone comes back with Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan etc, remember none of those countries developed under democracy.
Democracy is a stage that is achieved after industrialization, not during.
Democracy being like socialism in that sense, being a stage - rather than an ideology that can be rolled out anywhere.
Well you can roll it out anywhere, but it won't succeed in countries without a proletariat. I mean show me a successful, non industrialized or even semi-industrialized democracy?
And even the West only took on full universal suffrage after becoming fully industrialized. Throughout the 19th century Britain and France were not democracies in any modern sense.
it absolutely could have: see post-85 taiwan. it's a social democracy.
mao also shot china in the foot. in the 50s and 60s, the cultural revolution completely dismantled everything. doctors as peasants, peasants as doctors, not enough food, too much steel, it was a complete fucking disaster in which millions died and it retarded chinese industrial development for 25 years.
@@SomeLazyDr Post 85, Taiwan was already industrialized, by the time it had embraced democracy, it was fully developed.
If Taiwan had embraced democracy during its development stage, it could have been held back by infighting, protests, strikes etc.
Democracy seems to retard development in developing countries - Brasil, Venezuela, India, South Africa. Democracy in developing countries becomes a by-word for crime and corruption, and general instability.
Even if Jiang Kai-Shek had been victorious in the Civil War, it's doubtful China would have become a democracy in the 40s. After all, Taiwan went through forty years of Marshal Law, with tens of thousands of communists and Leftists executed or imprisoned. Marshal Law only ending in 87, once Taiwan had become a First World developed country, thanks in large part to the Marshal Plan and very favorable trading terms with the West,
Which begs the question, would Taiwan have got such sweetheart deals without the threat of communism?
So in a round about way, communism was responsible for Taiwanese development. Moreover, would China had received such favorable trading terms without communism?
So say what you like about Mao, he did create leverage for China and Taiwan regards Western aid and trade.
"The question is, could China have succeeded without hard-line governments?"
Probably not since China has never had democracy in their 5000+ year history as a civilization, except for Hong Kong and Taiwan. The southern Han Chinese were bred to be a servile race to their northern rulers for over 1000 years after the fall of the Han Dynasty. Even the Ming Dynasty was ruled by descendants of northern steppe peoples.
By the time Mao was in charge there were too many conflicts between provinces for Democracy to have been effective, and combined with bandit hordes hiding in the wilderness pretending to be monks he had to be hard-line. One of the main goals of Mao's Cultural Revolution was to being back the idea of a unified Han Chinese, even though the majority of China had interbred with the barbarians to the point that the original Han Chinese are effectively extinct. To that end he claimed that anyone living within Chinese borders are now Han Chinese; the same way Americans claim European and American Indian ancestry (Google "Amerimutt" for a laugh). Of course, Tibetans, Mongolians and Uyghurs don't count since they were annexed after the initial Cultural Revolution.
TL;DR = No, because China doesn't know any other way.
Non/Semi industrialized successful democracies: San Marino? Costa Rica?
@@donparkvideos I wouldn't say Costa Rica is a success, that is in terms of being a developed country. San Marino is a tiny tax haven. I said large country.
And when did San Marino embrace democracy? Basically after industrialization, like Italy more generally.
That tragedy lifted 600 millions out of poverty.
@Johan Sahlin no, *state capitalism*, in opposition to the unfettered capitalism which is destroying the US, for example.
@Johan Sahlin That tragedy he is refering about.
@Johan Sahlin , i am not sure capitalism is doing americans that much good, unless they keep dreaming it is doing them good..do you have health insurance, by the way?
I would instead call it a success: in China the government is actually controlling the capitalists, not the other way around.
As you know, westerner, especially American have a magic skill called "redefine a word". If China or Chinese politics is not a tragedy, the common meaning of this word as we know, some western politicians can try to redefine "tragedy".
listening to him makes my nose itch
I really wish to see where China's meteoric growth leads to. Historically, such explosive economic boom has almost always lead to spectacular bust. The only problem is, the shockwave of such a large "bust" will pop everyone's drum.
Well,this meteoric growth has already last for 40 years. Try to be humble or you will learn nothing.
He didn’t answer the question ... again!
He said how things should be looked at. That's enough tbh :)
VArsovski10 and so on
He did, he just didnt give the answer you wanted to hear
Never mind the middle class hoy poloi think he must be better than Trumpy Pumpy.Volume beats bull everytime!
Make a good candidate to be a US President!
I don't blame Zizek himself as much, as the Western commentariat and journalism on China, which informs his opinion, is dodgy to say the least. It should be noted though, that Zizek's opinions on China are mostly irrelevant, except for the occasional prescient observation, that the West is approaching similar authoritarian order. But Zizek's penchant for ironic paradoxes and random curious anecdotes makes his judgement on China mostly worthless.
His arguments became totally irrelevant when he argued that ”communism is good” because china became prosperous in the last 40 years, when the real reason why it became prosperous it’s the fact it renounced the disastrous Maoist and communist economic policies, and shifted towards an opened western inspired capitalist economy with the help of the USA.
He admits that is the case in the first three minutes of the video, and said that he says that as a joke in response to right wing Chinese communist concern.
Authoritarian socialist states. Authoritarian capitalist states. That’s the future whether we like it or not.
And if you are not bombarded with political propoganda and has the habit of protesting everything it's better than democracies. I'll prefer any state with the system like Singapore.
I don't thing the guy from this channel understands Zizek
Like, I felt bad for the person asking the question - she's asking for his advice on how the Hong Kong protest movement should orient itself, and he goes on a discussion about the success of capitalism in China.
She is phishing his support.
His answer is absolutely what the protesters should have been thinking about if they were at all serious.
You should link to the full interview :)
Zizek has never really been a marxist, he just doesn't like capitalism. watch michael parenti.
This 1000%
Zizek is fundamentally no different from Chris Hedges
He likes floating around different tendencies (including Marxism) and outright called himself "more of a Hegelian" once, but I believe he still wants Communism as an end goal.
And fall further down the rabbit hole of revisionism. If you are interested in communism there isn't a replacement for Marx&Engels. Don't go for 2nd hand sources.
An opinion of a person who didn't read a single book of his.
There is another economic miracle which Zizek doesn't use as an example, but might be as significant as China's economic uptick: And that was Japan in the post 1945 world. Let's not forget the Liberal Democratic party of Japan was practically unopposed for 45 years in government and utilized heavy State-regulation in conjunction with targeted borrowing-lending schemes to raise Japan to the 3rd largest economy in the world for many, many years. By not allowing industry-sectors that were awash with capital to continue borrowing, and by lending capital to industries the Japanese government were keenly aware required capital to restart/grow, Japan's implicit, benign cartels of industry raised the standard of living far beyond what even the affluent of Shanghai, Hong Kong, and other Western-bastions of industry were capable of in China.
No matter whatever political background has been in japan, its safe to say that its elite capitalist industrialists have run japans economic development as an almost mini oligarchy.
These protests have been a catastrophe for the left in China. What's most discouraging is that if they protests had indeed been leftist in character, rather than vulgarly anti-Chinese-- say, if they had gone after the tiny group of oligarchs that dominate Hong Kong who were installed when the city literally sold out from under people's feet during the handover-- the SAR could be a foothold for mainland leftists and progressives of all kinds. But this was impossible, totally impossible, because up until two years ago "hong kongers" actually perceived themselves as diametrically and totally opposed to all forms of socialism and communism since so many of them were displaced there by various political upheavals in China. Now we have opportunistic political formations meant to shore up anti-Chinese nationalism that masquerade as traditionally left organizations. Far from forming alliances with people in the mainland, mainlanders are at best afraid of traveling to Hong Kong out of fear of being beaten and abused for their dialect or accent, at worst they want merciless, punitive action against them. Support who you want in this fight.
You should probably say "Anti-CCP" and not "anti-Chinese."
Hong Kong is a "Chinese" city full of "Chinese" people.
They aren't against "The Chinese."
@@ZZFilm I've been coming to Hong Kong since '91 and in my experience they have always looked down on mainlanders, and still do very much. There is a strong racist undercurrent in all these protests. Although this racism is much stronger in Hong Kong, you will also find it to a lesser degree on the mainland side as cantoneese speaking Chinese also feel above mandarin speaking Chinese.
Dj Maze
Yeahs. I have a lot of friends who live there or are from there and I mostly agree with you. I’m just saying that race probably isn’t the best word. “Class” sure. “Mainland” sure. But race just isn’t the right word, unless it’s Han against Manchurian, our Mongolian etc. That’s what I’m getting at.
@@ZZFilm It's definitely racism, and they are definitely against the Chinese (and in their mind now they are something else). For years before the protests HK'ers have been bullying mainland Chinese tourists visiting HK. Calling them all kind of names, so this idea that they are just against the CCP is very naive.
Dj Maze I hear you, but what you're describing is not based on race, since both groups are the same race. Call it bigotry or intolerance or maybe Hong Kongers are simply just A H0les, but it's not race based. No racism. Maybe they just don't like the sound of Mandarin, but then of course they'd also be treating the Taiwanese Chinese poorly as well.
Zizek, as most of his european socialists counterparts , fall in that old utopianism - I support a revolution until it happens, then I turn my back and start to condemn a revolucionary process that has to handle all of it's contradictions and resist imperialism intervention at the same time. His timid support for Hong Kong protesters is a clear sign of that - he acknowledges that the alternative for China's intervention is imperialist intervention - even so he hesitates to condemn a movement that is clearly in favor of western agenda. How can he be so naïve to be surprised at the Hong Kong protesters' support for Trump?
@sabahiya Well it isn’t necessarily socialism in China that has accomplished a lot, but opening up its market to the west. However, that inter played with their socialist government, which gave them much more control otherwise. Now we owe them debt. China is playing the capitalism game quite cautiously. They know about the federal reserve and debt-backed currency and everything else going on in the western world. As for the accomplishment, I think you should open your eyes and see what it looked like in the 1980’s. No other country has become a superpower as fast as China has. It is complex politics and the American media dumbs it down to “Communist China is bad”. Honestly, I think your comment is quite shallow-minded when compared to other conversations you could be having. It’s obvious to see what China has accomplished. However, you should be asking deeper questions like what are the implications, how would such rapid development affect their politics and socialistic governance, etc.
@sabahiya Lol, I need to ask if you are living in reality. It’s a common debate tactic to just ignore everything someone says, however you actually haven’t refuted that the living conditions for many Chinese people have gotten better. The people living in rural areas are still in need of better infrastructures, sure. However, are you really going to say those living in the major cities are still living in the same conditions as in 1912? It seems you are the one brainwashed by western media. Also keep coping “it hasn’t become a superpower”. Lol yeah, I noticed YOU were the one living in a fantasy world when you said that. Why is America and Donald Trump always attacking China? Lol not a superpower my ass. The fact of the matter is that the West saw the opportunities China could provide and greedily accepted their market after they made economic reforms with Deng Xiaoping. If you want to say that it goes both ways, fine it did go both ways. Also, I like how you view military power as a way to measure accomplishment. Is this why America has failing infrastructures while they continue to increase the military’s budget? Also, please provide me examples of “more and better growth” in other Asian countries. It seemed you forgot your own point of including military might. Who relies on America? Lol.
@sabahiya “China is now considered an emerging global superpower in economy, military, technology and diplomatic influence.[6][7][8][9][10][11] According to the 2019 Asia Power Index, Lowy Institute considers China as a superpower of Asia, ranked second behind the United States. Whilst China takes the lead on the parameters of economic resources, future resources, economic relationships and diplomatic influence across eight measures, it still ranks second on military capacity and cultural influence, only behind the United States.[12][13] Currently, China has been referred to as a "second superpower," with global power and influence on par with the United States.[14][15][16] China's challenging the United States for global predominance constitutes the core issue in the debate over the American decline.[17][18][19]”
@sabahiya The Qing dynasty at the time of its collapse? Or the “Qing Dynasty” in its entirety? The problem is that you keep changing your arguments. You say that at the beginning and then later on you say that it is as powerful as it was for the entirety of the Qing dynasty and then ask me what’s wrong. Make up your mind. China was largely a hermit kingdom and largely interacted through the Silk Road until foreign countries started to interfere which lead to consequences like the opium addiction. China had no power left near the end of the Qing dynasty. However, I wouldn’t be as rash as you to compare two entirely different generations, even at the peak of the Qing Dynasty. Everything is globalized and much more complicated than the politics China had back during the Qing dynasty. To be a superpower is to have influence all over the world. So basically what you’re saying to me is that China is still a largely hermit kingdom that has little say in global politics like during the Qing dynasty when no country even saw it as a major threat. You proved this point yourself. It fell from the inside out due to its poor cohesion. Yeah nice try, but I disagree with your analogy. Also, infrastructure is not everything, but it does matter. The public schools clearly need better funding especially in poor neighborhoods. The poor neighborhoods and “ghettos” are suffering and the US isn’t doing anything about it. Why do “we” (not even a Chinese apologist btw, just not as hypocritical as you) use infrastructure as an achievement? First, it is an achievement regardless of whatever you want to say. Your point doesn’t make any sense because you would probably be celebrating when an African village gets access to better facilities and clean water, or when the US built the transcontinental railroad. That means you are a hypocrite who just refuses to acknowledge that better infrastructures are an achievement only when it comes to China merely because many people have used this arguing point. Also, more people using a talking point doesn’t make it any less valid. Idk what to say to you man, you’re honestly brain dead if you don’t think improving infrastructure is an achievement. If you think that what they’ve built isn’t an accomplishment, then you are basically saying that no infrastructure that mankind has built are accomplishments. I could go on, but I honestly think you’re gonna lie and be a hypocrite and pretend like building better infrastructures aren’t an accomplishment and take what I said out of context. Also lol @ the spending money wisely part. Maybe the Scandinavian countries are, but US? Hah, it goes to corporate interests, military-industrial complex, etc. I could go on for a couple more paragraphs about the military-industrial complex but I really brought that up to come back to the military. The reason why I brought up the military in my last comment was because you went against your own point that other Asian countries are more successful and you linked military power with that. I think you can make the connection yourself. I never said military power wasn’t an accomplishment. I just brought up your hypocrisy in using that point and then saying other Asian countries are more successful. That’s not a point you should bring up when talking about the achievements of East Asian countries. Anyways I’m gonna go on a little tirade on the military-industrial complex since you can somehow justify that but not spending money on infrastructure. The US perpetuates war for monetary gain. You still stand by that? Here’s a list of the stuff they created for civilization use. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_inventions . You’ll notice that the internet was the last useful thing they’ve done. The point you’ve made is also stupid because the US can use the fund they put into the military to actually start inventing new technologies that aren’t for war. Why does it have to be through the military? Is that how you justify military spending? How much of an apologist are you? Can I see the faults in China? Yes. Can I also see that they’ve accomplished a lot? Yes. Poverty rates, illiteracy rates, etc. etc. etc. have all become better. I think you don’t know just where China was back just 40 years ago. The rate they’ve grown is insane and I just don’t see why you would try arguing over what they’ve accomplished. Even you know how dumb of an argument that is because you keep talking about extraneous points. You talked about the military, how their government is autocratic, etc. I see their failures like their lack of democracy. However, I also give credit where it’s due. I can say for example that the internet wasn’t an accomplishment because it wasn’t invented for us but as a consequence of war. However, that’s a dumb argument and that’s what you sound like.
Anyways, I rest my case for the moment as I have finals next week. Dumb decision to respond but I hate hypocrites.
@sabahiya Damn it bruh wait until my finals are over. But I think we can both agree that arguing over UA-cam comments trying to change a stranger's mind is dumb lol
I know English isn’t his first language, but how this guy is a popular orator blows my mind. He doesn’t even make a single point in this entire video
He’s seemingly just a Marxist apologist. He rambled on but I think his rant can be summed up by his last point, that he doesn’t like China actions but doesn’t want them to be like the west
The moment Slavoj stars to go on, you know it'd be smooth sail and so on
Wish Someone would ask him to say "She Sells Sea-Shells on the Sea-Shore" while behind a Screen!
hahaha! Oh yeah, he would have a heart attack!
Again he said lots of things, dirn`t answer the question and the title of the video is wrong xD
He did but you clearly didn't understand it
@@kzr_1613 Oh sorry smartass.
@@vladimirzelenovic7807 No problem, dumbass.
@@kzr_1613 Actually please explain
@@whythelongface64 he said he supported honk kong, that the CCP has done what the west did time ago and that how we are culpable of the same things they do.
That people see the west as a a savior but in reality is the same monster painted in a different color, honkongers should stribe for something completely different
"Wait a minute, be serious, and so on"
This is something that everyone must see! Indeed they combined both systems in terms of their flaws/evils.
我还以为外国人对中国的社会制度有一定的偏见，原来他们跟我们想的一样。中国确实完美的继承了资本主义和社会主义的缺陷
@@无火的余灰-k9t do you think the CCP will reach its stated goal of being more truly socialist by 2030?
Wish he'd leave his nose alone.
He's stimulating the circulation of his brain!
This is no laughing matter, i have same problem with my penis
@@Optiganone Moist Vagina have penis.. now i seen it all.
Yeh it's disgusting and annoying
He had a stroke earlier where portions of his face become paralyzed. Wiping his nose was one of the uncontrollable ticks he picked up. He can't help it.
"Trump, please deliver us from the grip of authoritarianism and communism." Lmao.
Humanity and the US Working Class will deliver us from Trumpy Pumpy and Creepy Joe!
Most people spend their days at work,we are allienated from work because we are working for Capitalist authorities. Socialism will let us belong to our work place. Producing for us not them!
Right because Trump is putting dissidents in re education camps and killing people who disagree with them. Many people don't realise this but the people of regions which are now recently owned by the Chinese are getting that treatment from the Chinese dictatorship.
If trump was a dictator he would he silencing speech. The biggest culprit of speech silencing is left wing big tech companies. Facebook, google, and Twitter.
@@deathstarwontsaveyou9892 they are not left wing but neo liberal
This is just what I said like 2 years ago, The system in china, even tho I don't like it, works better than ours, therefor, maybe we, as a society or species, are simply not clever, empathic or capable enough to own liberalism. I wouldn't want to live in an authoritarian society, but I think many people would actualy be better off, even tho they won't aknowledge it, since those people, sadly, also are those who are blinded and manipulatet the most by our system.
How is it that the Chinese system is working better than the US system specifically?
@@cf6713 China's foreign policy is arguably better, even though it's not ideal.
There is no Chinese equivalent of the overthrow of Libya where literal slavery came back
There is also publicly funded healthcare, which, though not great, is better for those who are under the middle class compared to the US where medical bankruptcy is the most common form of bankruptcy.
Despite the corrupt authoritarian nature of the justice system in China, they imprison much less then the US system which is influenced by for profit prison corporations.
Chinese government ownership of all land puts a lid on any potential housing bubble and the homeownership rate is much higher in China compared to the US.
@@xenoblad Have you never heard of the Uyghurs?
Copy and paste these into any non Chinese search engine and see what pops up...
"Uyghur camp"
"Uyghur labor"
"Uyghur Islamic culture"
If we could all go back in time, knowing what we all know now, we'd probably speak up for all slaves, and lost cultures, and native people from across the world who lost their history to an invasive culture.
You can no longer speak up for the departed and forgotten, so why not speak up for the people who are now being silently crushed right before your very eyes.
Dalym
Chinese foreign policy is rather limited to even compare, however there have been many Chinese failures. I think the near future will be even more telling.
Medical bankruptcy in the US is a factor of going bankrupt while having medical debt, not due to the medical debt. This is a major distinction. Research and advancement of medical technologies, and practices are 2nd to none.
Only 10% of prisons in the US are private for profit businesses. To blame the high prison rate on that is completely disingenuous. Freedom isn’t free it costs a buck 0 five.
I don’t see how home ownership = better. Freedom and ease of movement has always been a key driver of success. You also mention the system has stopped any bubble from forming however it has also produced under housing and lower standard housing. I do recognize that development is an ongoing practice and the positive changes being made
I know what you are referring to. The most difficult thing for any individual to accept is to admit that he or she is actually not that great.
I think Chinese people knows In their hearts that this period of economic development with market economy is just a way to develop socialism, it’s just temporary
I think they strat to know that use market economy to develop socialism is a lie . It is just capitalism
Naah you can choose, eat or not. Its every easy of a choice 👍
Okay, but what makes you think the state and its agents will want to give up any power when it’s reached peak capitalism? Of course, I don’t think any regime will last forever and will eventually crumble or be overthrown, but when the time comes, will they necessarily make the transition to communism? Or to something else, perhaps something even worse than the current state of affairs?
@@metaphoricdirigible1499 It's not really Capitalism though... It's a bit complicated, I recommend checking out "Bay Area415"s channel, especially this video:
ua-cam.com/video/ZLDV9A4JNJg/v-deo.html
@@metaphoricdirigible1499 yes，now a lot of teenagers realize that “market economy”is capitalism and CPC is lying
I'm always sceptical about the "communism helped china become better" thing. The united states and europe didn't need communism to get to where they are today. I think technological advancements and trade with non-communist countries are more to thank than communism for china's development, if what china is and was can even be called communist at all.
I'd also like to know how the west incorporates social credit in "a subtle way". As far as I know, especially in europe, nobody is blocked from getting a loan, going to college, etc. Probably different in the US. And even if there was some version of it, integrated "subtly", it isn't as draconian. Neither in europe nor america do you get any more or less opportunities for, for example, praising or criticising the government.
I agree with you and I would add that Chinese authoritarianism and imperialism should be a much bigger target of criticism by the left.
And ps.: love Max Stirner
The US and Europe had centuries of expansion and exploitation to reach their current prosperity. Its prosperity built on the backs of slaves, indentured servants, colonial workers, etc etc
Well, try to go and volunteer helping the kurds or going to fight with them. And then come back.
@@semguitarra China is criticized by the left, any marxist party does it.
All those public goods you mentioned have been commodified and you obviously don't see it. You get education but then you live almost in debt peonage and social control.
And, you just think about one thing: why doesn't China allow its capital market to open up to the global investors as Trump has been trying so hard to do that, the neoliberal servant that he is? I am not defending China but making a point about economic reality
I have a lot of respect for Slavoj Zizek, but he keeps mentioned China's economic growth in terms of communism. That is flat wrong. It was when they abandoned communism (in practice) when the growth started. It was the market reforms and the introduction of capitalism that made them wealthy. They kept their authoritarian single party dictatorship government, but they embraced a market economy.
I lived in China for 5 years (my avatar photo was taken their). China is the only country on earth where the desire to start your own business and be successful rivals the US. I think China needs to be discussed in terms of Fascism not Communism. I mean that in the literal since as opposed to the pejorative in which it is commonly used in western society.
Forget about whether Fascism or Communism is good or bad, that not the point. The point is what term can you use to accurately describe the situation. Communism died in China with Mao. If you look up a dictionary definition of China, they meet it perfectly.
Truth
Nevertheless food is good!
We had other authoritarian capitalisms in the world and they didn't work that well. China worked because they also mixed in some true communism in there. More than half of the means of production are owned by the State, and the Party has representatives in all companies, and can shut them down tomorrow. Calling this capitalism is far fetched.
I listen to leftists and hear them out but I rarely agree with them. At least he said Chinas isn’t the modal to be used.
China isnt trying to export their model of governance, this is what west doesnt understand. The chinese governance with chinese characteristic if exported will fail, its tailored for its ppl and its country itself. China believes that governance of a country should be tailor to the needs of ppl and country. China not going to rule the world, even if they tried they will fail miserably, coz the days of becoming a roman empire is now and far gone. No country will accept it
never heard a western leftist saying we should replicate the Chinese model. i personally only go as far as to say that China is effectively countering US imperialism and i am thankful for that. China is a slap on america's face on a geopolitical level.
@@rodrigoroa6753 Yea, because who needs democracy.
@@TheBanderson22 liberal democracy has deteriorated to such a degree that even americans are doubting its legitimacy. maybe fix you own mess first an then talk shit about other countries.
I mean China does support child slavery
Im scared to admit that we will be following China like a child his mother in the future
Why, China doesn't export it's ideology like US does
True
@@hmmmhmmm6917 Yeah they just pay media companies to do it for them.
You dont need to follow our model. You choose what suit for you most.
I prefer bread than liberty, and thats why we have survive so long.
I think it's important to be mature about facing reality, tuning down the rhetoric and acknowledging the astoundingly positive economic results achieved under the Chinese authoritarian system of governance. But the mere acknowledgment of these successes do not necessarily imply acknowledgement of any continuing future successes of the same magnitude, less magnitude or success of any kind. In other words, just because corporate fascism (Socialism with Chinese Characteristics) worked fantastically well for China in the past few decades does not mean it will continue to work into the indefinite future. The mere acknowledgment of these successes also do not imply that the West or any other civilizational orders should adopt and emulate the current Chinese system of governance as some sort of a generally applicable system which it clearly isn't. The Chinese government has shown no interest of propagating its system of governance outside of its own country. Any Western fear of such propagation in my view is just self projection based upon Western Civilization's own past and present behaviors. Finally to the professor's point, any criticism launched at China, currently the designated Boogie Man of the Western Order, should be tempered with some self reflection and self awareness of one's own shortcomings and hypocrisies.
It isn't about China propogating it's system outside it's borders. It's about Western leaders deciding such a system is in their best interest as it allows them to centralize power and use technology, force and propaganda to keep their populace in servitude with 0 repercussions. Which they most certainly will, if they get the opportunity.
You are looking at it through a purely economic lense, at least in that comment. The authoritarian side of china is the problem and the side of it most people in the west find unpalettable. Their system might well be better in terms of running a society, economy sucessfully etc, but if the price to use it is the humanity of an entire nation is it worth it?
China is a country with 2200years as one country there are so many different things in this country that you will never understand. unless you grow up there. the deep rooted culture and mentality had never left China and its people . that is the power which hold this country for over 2200years. no matters it under emperor or republic or communism regimes for any type social structure. the only way to know China is put youself into that country and talk with the locals. believe what western media said only makes you blind about China.
China literally wants world economic domination. They're busy indebting countless countries in Africa and the Middle East, and some Western countries as well. Wtf are you talking about lmao
@To Release is To Resolve : it is already.
Self loving Westerns haven't the guts to admit .•°
First of all since opening China is not communist anymore. Second thing - Zizek claims he supports Hongkong protests but at the same time he suggested that stoping liberalization was great. So actually he doesn't support Hongkong protests. Third thing - there is a difference between doing something softly and doing it roughly. You really can't say that China is just slightly different from the West. It's significantly different. Definitely more austere state. And last thing - what lifted people out of poverty was not communism but freeing the market and technology transfer from the West.
first thing, he's against political pluralism and naive liberalism, not liberalization. secondly, he's saying that authoritarian capitalism is what lifted people out of poverty, not communism.
It's about playing one's roles in today's world, Chinese couldn't producing high value-added products as a third world country back then, in order to thrive economically people back then had to work hard, it is not the case until recent year because the distribution scale has been tilted unbalanced for awhile, the recent Xi's policy is about giving back to the society and help the lower class people to be wealthy and thriving as well, zizek calling out China's system to be imperfect but failed to realize his own knowledge limitation, what china had gone through was impossible for almost every other third world country to do in the world, I mean at the end of the day is easy to criticize but I do wish he can provide some better answer with the fact in mind that capitalists all over the world are always influencing and threatening a country's dimension of policy, whenever you slow down they will suck your soul out for dinner.
Mao had to do what he did and Chinese people did suffer but Chinese did successfully industrialize and had strategic weapon defense without exploiting other countries or made commitments and let higher power step their foots in during the process, I do agree his point at this stage we shouldn't treat our workers as bad as before and a lot of things have to changed, exploitation needs to be countered, but I don't buy the idea China and Singapore model to be as horrified as he described, because he can't grasp that there is a reason that Chinese and Singapore(used to lead by Chinese descendants and with large percentage of population of Chinese descendant) system worked for themselve, because they shared culture attributes which are things like unity, reasonable, trusting in professional selection system are and common prosperity, while west valued democracy, freedom and individual rights to extreme.
It's fine being a pessimist, but I do think it's the best we have at the moment, if at some points it is doomed to fail, and revolution doesn't come, and humanity cannot persist, we can only say we already did our best, we are just not smart enough to see past our greed.
I agree with you
我不同意
Ok, i need something clarified: he said "sorry, communism didn't fail, look at China", but he also said "the chinese succeeded by combining unbridled capitalism with authoritarianism" (so basically authoritarian capitalism). Do these two statements not contradict eachother?
He has said this more than once, so i don't think he misspoke.
Also when he points that China achieved economic success by unbridled capitalism, he seems upset by that in a way that implies that that is a sign that Chinese renounced communism in some way. It seems like he’s conceding that under pure communist policies, economic development is impossible and that he would have preferred that China had remained purely socialist even if it meant not experiencing the material progress it did.
It’s actually extremely confusing: he decries competitive capitalism but praises its economic results, he decries the Chinese authoritarian system but still thinks they made the right call in not opening the country to political pluralism.
@@omg5501 I wish he would get called out on this things more. Whenever I see him he is giving a conference and preaching to the choir.
You know when I heard his bullcrap about social credits in CN I was like:What? I lived here for about 20 years and I never heard bout dat,I'm a Chinese, dude...You seriously want to convince me with that point?
This comes down to understanding Marxism and communism in general. Marxism is a school of thought while communism is a form of society. Instead of advocating for communism as some sort of alternative, much of Marxist thought is that communism is inevitable. It has less to do with whether communism is better than capitalism and rather that all societies will eventually become communist. Marx called this historical materialism, and it is a form of Hegelian dialectics.
Think about how Western countries have shifted from the unbridled capitalism of the 18th and 19th centuries to a much more state-regulated form of capitalism. There now exists protected labor unions, working conditions laws, company growth regulations, and government subsidies that never existed in the past.
Under historical materialist thought, economies will continue to evolve. For example, economies might go from true capitalism to regulated capitalism to state-controlled capitalism to state-controlled socialism to socialism to communism.
Productive ability drives the progression to communism. Communism will not function in a society that does not have an excess of resources. For money and class to disappear, there must be so many resources that people don't need to trade for goods. They can just take them. In a society of "infinite" resources, there is no poor or rich. As we become more productive, ie the means of production improve, we become more capable of communism. Perhaps communism does work, but it would require a society with productive capabilities 300 years more advanced than ours currently.
Therefore, state capitalism, which was/is China's form of government is closer to communism than what the West has. China's economy has more features of communism, and their economic success with state capitalism proves that more aspects of communism work in today's society. This can be seen as proof of historical materialism.
Many, if not most, of his takes on AES countries lack any type of consistency, Marxist materialist basis, or any other type of analytic rigour. He should stick to analysing batman films...
3:30 "we are doing it in a more subtle way and so on and so on" THAT'S JUST NOT HOW YOU USE AND SO ON, at this point he's just rambling
2:06 an exotic bird found its way into the studio
The title is so misleading.
It's soooo entertaining to watch this man playing wwith his nose haha
He seems incapable of completing a sentence. He gives the expectation that he's about to offer an opinion on some topic and then veers off into something else, often a joke or anecdote of some sort that then leads to an apology and a promise that he won't be much longer, although he doesn't seem able to curtail his endlessly discursive and confusing monologue.
subscribed to OAN, makes sense that you wouldn’t understand lol
Actually I've been a Zizek fan for years. Which is why I get so frustrated when he tends to veer off-topic so often.
@@victorgrauer5834 he's trying to find different ways to get the ideas across so that it resonates with as many people as possible I think, but I understand the frustration, Terence Mckenna did the same shit sometimes lol
But the he nailed it at the end
The thing is about him saying china uplifting so many people out of poverty with authoritarianism and capitalism. Well Taiwan and many other countries achieved similar growth without authoritarianism
Really?? You better check the history. The Asian dragons grew based on authoritarian principle before they democratise. Britain didn’t advocate free trade until it was able to grow upon mercantilistic principles. Your dichotomy blinds you from thinking soberly.
@@joelin3049 Well, lets talk about every other country in the world that doesn't have that model then? Begin with Japan perhaps? www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/gdp-growth-rate. Their boom didn't have the model you speak of, they did pretty well it seems.
@@mr.goldfarmer4883 Any discussion of Japan without considering the US is insufficient. Japan was allowed to grow with the US permission and fell because the US intervened [see: hbr.org/1998/01/reinterpreting-the-japanese-economic-miracle].
The quote widely known in the HBR article above is this: "A key element of Japanese success was the keiretsu. By banding into keiretsu-huge business groups that link industrialists, banks, and trading companies through reciprocal ownership of stock and long-standing exclusive relationships-individual companies gained financial strength and connections that allowed them to undercut foreign and domestic rivals. Their mission was to gain market share rather than accumulate short-term profits, and they aggressively entered high-growth sectors with long-term potential. The concerns of consumers and outside stockholders, who had few other outlets for their earnings besides low-interest savings accounts, were secondary."
I am not suggesting that this passage necessarily implies that Japan is authoritarian, but it definitely shows a high degree of planning and centralization. Keiretsu would not have been left with so much power had the state not been strong.
Research on Japan has pointed out that the Japanese government has had a quite centralized and clan-based system. My Japanese friends tell me what has always been happening behind the scenes. But you can also read up about this [see: link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137550453_4].
The economy of Taiwan is in the toilet.Most of the growth was achieved during the reign of Jiang jingguo,the successor of his father dictator.That make him a dictator too
What's the difference between Tito and Deng Xiaoping? The latter teaches better English...
Dang Xiao Pig
Deng Xiaoping's country is still there, and Tito's country is destroyed.
The communist Sylvester.
Old bleather more like!
Lmao
The girl or woman who asked the question had thick mainlander chinese accent lol
How thick is your accent?
I a native speaker of Cantonese confirms that there is a thick Cantonese accent in the woman's speech. 99% from Hong Kong.
He didn’t answer the question tho
He never really does, but I keep reading his books and feeling stupid and smarter at the same time. It doesn't make sense honestly...
Lol nope, his short term memory seems a little off sometimes. Very associative thinking, which can get... kinda frustrating.
He answered the question in a subtle way.
He described how things should be looked at, that's even better than answering the question
For those interested in the "result", the answer is/was NO
It's just the way his brain works I think, you should read his books though
what did zizek say at 2:00? Can anyone tell me?
我 的 天，鼻炎怪这个英语没字幕我就能听懂70%，哭了(ﾉಥ益ಥ)。
if you listen to him more you'll get it
我听了了两遍才听懂
口音重哦
如果他说邓公做得对，那么这个题目就翻译错了，简直是在黑中国
他没说邓小平做的对，他说邓小平当时做出了最好的选择。但即使如此，中国仍然变成了一个血腥资本主义和极权国家合为一体的怪胎。这才叫悲剧:你做对了一切，但仍旧落到悲残的结局。
Wow...he just keeps moving from one point to the other without closing any argument by saying "and so on"...
You are right. I found him overrated
Completely, he really out of his depth here.
You're an idiot. That's his tick. His points are clear: the Chinese government is in some ways the anti-thesis of Western 'democracies' and in other ways the West is hypocritical about their criticism. We mustn't take them for a model but we mustn't seek relief with our own inept leadership. Though i'm sure you know much better, Professor.
英语11级听力材料
哈哈，放心啦，不是我一个人听不懂
有一说一，老齐是说给西方观众听的，不换位思考还当是他在夸咱们的
所以UA-cam自动字幕以为他在说越南语？
Deng Xiaoping wanted to be Park Chun-hee，Pinochet or Lee Kuan Yew in China.His wish was to make China the next Singapore or Japan.However，because of the disaster happened in the soviet union in 1990s（by the way，I stand for CCP in the event in 1989，that riot could have dragged the nation into chaos），Deng could never abandone CCP‘s original ideology（at least publicly），which has become a “heavy burden” in today’s China.China today combines with authoritarian communism，liberalism， nationalism and even confucianism.This kind of state never exists before in human history，and no one could predict how the state would develope in the future……As some people say，China has entered “deep water” zone in both economic and ideology area，one single mistake would cause a horrible consequence…
@Christopher Grant in so many people‘s opinions the events only took place in beijing in that summer，in fact in 1989 students in most chinese cities went on the streets and tried to make a point，beijing was the the most famous one.that is why i didnt mention tiananmen square.
just noticed how he did not answer the question at all, if we should see the nationalist tendencies in the Hong Kong protests as part of the global rise of nationalism
the point is completely missed when ppl focus on and criticize nationalist elements of the HK protest, as if they aren't also fighting CCP fomented mainland Chinese nationalism, just the same.
Not comparable. International nationalism mostly refers to right wing populism. In Hong Kong, it means people feel more Hong Konger than Chinese (unlike you might think, cultures are different and people should not have a racial duty to a given government) and wanted to protect their promised rights, which they have completely lost as of today. There were no right wing policies demanded, or basically anything else rather than keep the promise and investigate police brutality.
Zizek might take time but if you listen closely you will gain alot from him.
can you give me any illuminating examples? I'm not trying to be a rude person on youtube, but I've watched a bunch of zizek videos in the past weeks and by the end of the video, I almost always feel like he hasn't really answered the question. often he will begin or close with a joke or an anecdote, but I really struggle to find any strong arguments or clear theses here. in this video he flat-out didn't answer the question either...
@@g-radiation7154 Got you. Yes he might not answer the question directly but in the broad sense of things you will gain some fuzzy insight into the topic he is talking about or you will get some general direction of where he is heading. Here he was trying to clarify the criticism of nationalism in Hong Kong. He pointed out the fact that china has a different way of doing things and we criticize them but they have good results to show for. They have uplifted many people from poverty in a way no country has ever done while being authoritarian with unfettered capitalism which is disdained in the West and the fact that they can combine both and achieve so much is mind boggling. So his point is that the lens with which we criticize them might be distorted.
@@abibnoor thanks for your reply. as far as I understood it, though, the question was how HK nationalism relates and compares to other kinds of nationalisms around the world. zizek answered that mainland China/the PRC has a unique system which, tragically, works really well in economic terms and has lifted many people out of poverty. therefore we have to be careful criticising China. the question was not about criticising China, though. so yeah, I don't see how he answered the question
@@g-radiation7154 I guess cause if China were an obvious "evil tyrant" then it's easy to see HK as fighting the good fight against an oppressor. However, since China has won the 'most improved award' on collectivist, economic grounds, it suggests that HK nationalism may not be as obviously justified and therefore perhaps has populist ulterior motives. This is a murky and round-about way of implying that though.
I do wonder if it really is the biggest economic leap relative to a country's size and starting condition of poverty though; rates of progress might be faster with more low hanging fruit? Also, what does the leap looks like in comparison to the progress of other countries if measured on a diverse range of metrics: wealth, health, education, violence, freedom, environmentalism, innovation, art and cultural contributions, hedonic happiness, udemonic happiness? How does the comparison change with timescales, the "tortoise vs the rabbit" situation?
Rather than to say we are nationalistic, I would rather say we fight for self determination . We are simply dissent, and this act itself whether senseless or well throughout, its value lies in action for such action carries with it dire consequences. We should accept the most resistance and dissident movements adopt the antagonistic view of the oppressors, in the case of HK this is ridiculous, we are fighting against a Capitalist system that is enshrined and protected by our city;s constitution yet our oppressors are Communists in name. So where does that leave us? Action and willingness to sacrifice. The rest is just Mumbo Jumbo.
This is why Zizek is accepted in the mainstream. China is winning.
tragedy it is，but not China
How much snot do you think he produces in a year?
Zat is a qvestion you'll have to ask my naz. I cannot be responsible for my naz.
None it remains inside - that's his plan .•°
3:11 it is still fundamentally different, people do not, people realsie the difference, there should be an understanding of distance, what is approached in 'the west' is different
.
but i would say chinas success was not resultant of it being communist
chinas success is capitalism succeeding ONLY under communist rule. the only successful third world economy from the era of globalization
So many people lifted out of poverty.. meanwhile in the concentration camps..
I mean I’d call them sweat shops. But yeah same shit
You have fallen into Western fraud already.
Just like zizek said.
@@linfenghuang2152
how so? Are the concentration camps and sweat shops made up?
Nose: I don’t like this.
I didnt understand what he said about Jordan peterson, someone please explain
Dejá de tocarte la nariz un rato hermano. O convidá
Creo que es un Tick nervioso de un derrame cerebral que tuvo
Pensé lo mismo jaja
un poquito de esa harina rica para los pibes, pasó y dijo el pity alvarez
"Should we adopt the China model? absolutely not! Do we have an alternative? I don't know..."
For a long time I have the impression that Slavoj's attitude towards "China" (politically) time and time again has been dictated by at least a smallest dose of fear for upsetting his Western liberal fanbase if not his lack of more comprehensive observation of this country, to the extent that he has been for some time repetitively bringing up paradoxes concerning Chinese issues as shown in the aforementioned quote and : "authoritarian capitalism lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty" , "sympathy for HK protesters but appalled by their seeing Trump as Saviour" so on and so on....
I'd rather hope that he's been "pervertedly" subtle in order not to be seen as "yet another average Marxist troll", but even that is still way too speculative if not cowardly for someone like him.....
Do you not see these as paradoxical?
@@peterhooper2643 These are not really paradoxical, these are actually rhetorics Zizek employed to keep his fanbase more at peace (I know China's probably done sth right BUT.... ) and conveniently to keep himself from a more serious discourse of real China, of which he has quite limited knowledge and experience. So in a sense, he might be just subtly being modest (I don't really know China as much as u hope, so probably I'll make another joke about her), which however could in term coincide with existing prejudice amongst his audience (see? even Zizek sees China in a generally negative light)....
@@alexhe7512 yeah I get that your saying he uses this as a way to avoid something but the paradox still exist right. Even if he is pointing it out to avoid making a definitive statement the paradox still exists... I mean unless you think China is entirely good or entirely bad.
This makes me curious what your stand on China is if you think it's a simple matter?
@@peterhooper2643 No I won't say China is entirely good or bad even as a Chinese living in China, the complexity of reality is undeniable but I'd say let's give credit where credit is due...
What u call paradoxes, I call play of word and syntax (or starting ground), change A BUT B to B BUT A (Do we have an alternative way out? I don't know BUT the China model seems to be doing pretty fine....; I'm really appalled by HK protesters admiration for Trump as Saviour even though their so called fight for freedom should not be dismissed), replace some near-cliché labels like “authoritarian regime” to "Centralised Management", "Freedom" to "Irresponsible Individualism" so on and so on, and see how that play out....
@@alexhe7512 ahhh... Yes I see what you are saying. I think zizeks issue with China is that he sees it as an inevitability if we cannot describe a better model. As he points out the "market solutions" of the west will collapse in the face of global pandemic/ climate change/ food shortages and a unified response that can be centrally planned will be the only viable model that survives.
So I don't think he feels like he needs to advocate for the Chinese models even though it posses some positive attributes because it will become the new hegemon in the near future. I believe he thinks it more important to emphasize what is wrong with that model, and why it is important to imagine a new model instead of blindly adopting the existing Chinese model.
The problem with China seems to be that it isn't communist enough, in the sense that there exists a huge class of workers and a small class of rich elites
His main point is we shouldn't believe the naive view of liberalism. He doesn't like what China has been doing but his ultimate question is where are the other options. Besides, he's right not to comment on Hong Kong since the West has been totally misled by the media. People in the West should reflect on the postcolonial condition of Hong Kong instead of making up terms like "Chinese imperialism". If you learn some basic history, you should know the issue of Hong Kong is a product of British colonialism. And China's sovereignty over Hong Kong stays at the heart of the Chinese notion of their nation.
Seems like you don’t know much about history of Hong Kong after all, but it’s forgivable since hyphenated history is taught in mainland China that makes every attempt at blaming internal problems on the west and fostering ultranationalist sentiments. An effective anti-corruption institution ICAC, separation of powers and rule of law was instituted during British “colonial” rule, making Hong Kong a big successful city with freedoms of speech, human rights and a trustworthy banking system. 30 years after the handover, Chinese have interfered and corrupted Hong Kong’s judicial system, clamped down on human rights, press freedoms and use the hk international banking system for money laundering and tax evasion. It’s no wonder Hong Kong people preferred the old colonial years to the current Chinese regime. In colonial years, people could truly voice out through district and legislative councils, unlike the current Beijing controlled functional constituencies which in reality is just a rubber stamp parliament.
I love him, but I'd also be afraid to quote him in a thesis, and not because I disagree with him, at all, hahah
I understand what you mean
Do it, no balls
As the great Slavoj Zizek one said: "And so on and so on...
Meanwhile Korea, Malaysia, Japan, Singapore were able to raise poeple out of poverty ...and much higher btw, with capitalist approach and without totalitarian dictatorship.
You have no any idea about east Asia countries.
Population.
Singapore has similar system to china dumbass.
Did he grasp even 1 vague aspect of that question?
feels like he just gave his general "what I have to say about China" answer... such a shame
The captioning for this is worse than when UA-cam thinks he’s speaking Dutch.
Western left intellectuals know the problem of China, but they choose to explore more fundamental problem within global capitalism, in which the protests in HK, brutality of HK Police force and the sovereign oppression on HK society mean relatively trivial to the structural crisis. To HK people who protest and are against the sovereign , those western intellectuals were just expressing their indifference to the current issues in Asia.
They do it to the homeless in England. If you prove yourself to a key worker that your not mad and can tidy your room they then allow you to have a rental contract at a certain rate. They want to make sure that your not "antisocial" or "mental" and these housing assoiciations are in fact goverment funded and accountable to themselves unless you can take them to court.
Usual whataboutery. It's never true Marixism is it. What a perfect religion.
The problem is that Marxism lost its roots and original meaning back in the early 20th century.
What the USSR and later China did, was neither socialist nor was it marxist. They simply declared it as such.
Socialism/marxism/communism is not when the state owns property and does stuff.
That is state capitalism.
Hanfgurkenhasser couldn’t have said it better.
The poor lady learned the upspeak American English accent....how sad she didn't have access to real-English instructors. 🥺
Slavoj should go and live in china as a dissident. I wonder if he feels the change is "subtle" compared to the west as he claims.
like Assange, guantanamo bay prisoners ?
@@vinnchan7631 Oh please, stop making such weak excuses for them. It just shows you have the moral compass of a psychopath. Do you even think before you type? Their government views millions of their own people as potential Assange's and persecutes them on the spot. Virtually oppressing everybody by social credit scores, making freedom of movement, free speech and the right to assemble absolutely impossible. Not to mention the genocides and ethnic cleanings they are still committing to this day inside their own borders and are now closing in on HK. Know the difference
@@NoOne-uh9vu you only read and listen what you want to read and listen
@@NoOne-uh9vu Wars created from lies ?
@@vinnchan7631 So you lost the argument and now you are salty and going adhom? You could have at least attempt to misdirect and move the goal post first like all you leftist ideologue cultists do.
Was there some basic starting point, let say zero, and did China from there have some meteoric rise under communism? Or did China after Communism have industrial depression and rural famine during the Great Leap Forward and so after communism the starting point perhaps from zero went to -50. and then now it has an meteoric rise and lets say it' s at 100. I think people just give China credit for the -50 to 100 meteoric rise, but they should actually measure from the zero point to the 100 level.
I'm trying to ask you if people don' t sneakily leave out the level 0 to level -50 part ?
Stable government with a long-term planning is a key for success in this capitalistic society. The problem of western democracy is that we are divided and trying to destroy each other just to win next election. In this environment it is hard to make any long term planning. For example just take a look what happened with Obama care after Trump took the office. I sadly agree that Chinese model just works better.
Better in terms of economic growth. As we know, economic growth doesn't correlate with a focus on people's rights and well-being. China is the same cancerous growth as the USA, just more efficient and resilient.
Actually that's completly wrong. China creates such vast wealth and income disparities that it's hurting it's economy a great deal. This isn't a humanitarian concern, or at least not just that. A capitalist economy is only as strong as it's aggregate cash flow and poor people just spend more of their money than the rich.
I've seen this argument of unity a lot and I always though it one of the surefire ways to show you that someone doesn't understand politics.
What the people making it miss is that democracy isn't a competency test, democracy is an accountabilty test. The same power struggles, political disagreements and changes of who has the upper hand exist in all political power structures, democratic or not. Democracy is just a way of ensuring they happen as non-violently and smoothly as possible and that winnng them requires working, at least indirectly, for the common good. It just works. As is proven by the immense statistical correlations it has with human rights, economic prosperity and average quality of life. Furthermore, this correlation works incrementaly in the dictatorship to democracy spectrum. The more democratic and politically free a country, the greater it's human development.
Remember this, for every ten dollars a crooked politicians pockets a dictator pockets ten million, for every man killed in a democratic country a dictatorship executes a hundred and there isn't one isntance of human history that points to the other way.
@@willnash7907 I understand that also in one party state there are a lot of disagreements but I still believe that it is much easier to make long term planning. Just look at India democratic state which had 40 years ago similar GDP as China and today you can see a big difference in standard of living. Or the other good African example is Rwanda which was 30 years ago the worst place on earth and today it is much better then all neighboring countries. In my opinion stable government is one the reasons for their success.
@@matejeber91 I can't tell if you are being ironic or not, but just in case you are not...
A one party state is a regime that forces it's leaders to be constantly paranoid about maintaining power. It incentivizes corruption for those in power, oportunism for those under them and oppression for the population. Worst of all, it necessitates class stratification, which is why there can never be a communist state in the original marxist definition without some democratic form of government. A dictatorship is essentially a swindle. Here is the "game" of the dictator: Use your underlings to control the army, control the army to stay in power, use the army to brutally tax your population, use that tax money almost exclusively to buy the loyalty of your underlings. If you try to divert money away for say, infrastructure,, then someone can promise that money to your underlings and now they have a reason to replace you. Which is really bad.
Kim Jong Un doesn't let his people starve and funnel huge sums of money into rich supporters because he is the devil or because he wants to. He needs to funnel that money into his underlings to keep them compliant and ensure that they don't plot to replace him.
This structure isn't just at the top either. Remember, running a state is a vast administrative challenge, it cant be run by a dictator and a dozen generals, bureaucrats and governors. Your underlings have their own underlings and so on and so on. From you to the grunts and footsoldiers. So there is no question of getting all of the best people to run the country dictorially because in the end the very structure of the dictatorship, the pyramid of wealth appropriation incentive system this forms will force their hand into acting like psychopaths and those that do not will swiftly lose to those that do.
P.S. India has huge problems that it would have under almost any system and it is essentially a banana republic in terms of legitimacy and structural integrity of it's democracy. Rwanda has had a genocide in it's recent past and owes it's growth exclusively to outside aid and whatever enlightenment values managed to take hold besides the odds... which by the way originate from a humanist and democratic world view. Both are cherry-picked examples. Generally democracies fare a lot better than dictatorships and the more democratic a country is the better it will do.
always worth considering. most of us live in our own little boat on our own corner of the sea. the fish may be free......ha,ha.
Good thing this is an opinion and only an opinion.
After watching this video I want to spit.
Sad, sad blather. Glad he said China should not be our model
the high=ranking chinese philosopher is probably Wang Hui
Has great Jokes I'm told!