Hakim: I live in South east Asia and I completely agree with your view points, your Iraki perspectives give tremendous substance to this view, which i think is well supported by recent events unfortunately when I sort of mention this around Europe where I am from l it gets totally rejected.
Look I love Lenin but the idea of imperialism being only and exclusively the export of capital was written for and meant to be applied to a particular historical moment which did not factor in the existence of a communist superstructure dominated society among any of the major powers. The USSR exported capital for the development of the eastern bloc, was that imperialism?
@@TexTalksSometimes Both actually. The famous Mao take on the "Phony communism of Khrushchev" in the 60s. He was right about the phony communism as they wanted peaceful coexistence (but i dont blame them they had seen 3 wars from 1917 to 1953 by the time Stalin died) accused them of being revisionists (he was also right here) and sliding towards imperialism.(Disagree) On Chinese maoists takes explicitly calling the soviet union imperialist since the 60s all the way until even 1979 theres a shit load on the marxists.org portal called Encyclopedia of the Anti Revisionist line. They taught this in party schools well into 1977 as of this video. You know well after the whole Nixon visit. ruclips.net/video/Nu570338zyY/видео.html Theres tons of other maoists indian, filipino etc taking the same line. They are all on bannedthought.net The MLM basic course by CPI maoist has a paragraph deriding soviet social imperialism while calling the Khmer Rouge genuine revolutionaries boldly fighting against the soviet imperialist satellite state of Vietnam. Maybe these people are wrong on this. Just a hunch. xD Under the system of global capitalism which the USSR traded under theres always unequal trade where the richer more developed country in the higher stage of production always benefits more. This cant change until theres a global socialist project AND there is comparable levels of development between regions. I wouldnt call this imperialism by any stretch. The pamphlet Paul refers to here talks about China being the "biggest exporter of capital" aka goods and services because its the producer of the world. They have confused Monopoly of industrial and finance capital working in tandem with China being the worlds factory.They also think FDI is imperialism when literally all countries have some outflow FDI in this day and age. Hell the USSR under Lenins NEP had joint stock exchanges and FDI.
@@akheelwaridh7488 You seen very knowledgable. I've barely dipped my goes into...what to call this...geopolitics? Socialist history? And I only am familiar with like half of what you're talking about, the rabbithole for "trying to be the best communist" seems to be infinite the longer I sift through everything.
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 Trying to be the best communist is really just trying to understand the world around you and how we can change it for the better. It is a pretty long task but it's really quite easy to get to grips with the basics, I'd reccomend "What is Marxism" for an introduction and that you get involved with any local groups if you're interested as you will learn fast and genuinly be acting to improve your society.
As a Chinese Maoist I think both of you guys are making great points here. My general points on the so called Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (SCC), socialist market economy, the 1978 economic reform, etc.: 1. It is incredbly weak as an ideology, and is directly against classical marxist theory. Its only foundation is economical development for the past 40+ years, and it has performed very well indeed. 2. Pragtism is nothing new. Any other country could implement socialism with their own characteristics but nobody succeeded. China did because it has gone through a genuine socialist revolution (both materialistically and ideologically) before the 80's that laid the very foundation required for a skyrocketing economy 3. As much as I uphold Mao's era, I think bourgeois reactions are inevitable. Any scientific socialist has to accept this: people will become tired for revolutions. Therefore I see the transition from capitalism to communism not as a single socialist period that progresses linearly towards communism, but several cycles of revolutions and reactions. I believe this is a dialectic materialistic view. For revolutionary left who don't know the history of PRC: Founding of PRC in 1949 = Storming of Bastille 1789 The Cultural Revolution 1966 = Jacobin revolutions 1793 Deng's rule 1980 = Thermidorian reactions 1794 Xi's rule 2012 = Brumaire coup d'etat 1799
I don't like how Paul Morrin throws terms like imperialism around as if FDI is all imperialism is. He also throws the term "imperialize" around a lot toward the end of the video, a concept I've never heard before lol. Morrin thinks it's China's responsibility to show that it has a "progressive role to play" as opposed to throwing off the chains that have held it back for hundreds of years. His hopes that "China ushers in a world revolution", and that being the bar of success for Chinese Socialism shows a real disconnect between the way China views itself and how Western leftists view it: Instead of wondering what one might learn from China, Morrin expects China to deliver things to the world, deliver development, deliver socialism, do it fairly, "progressively", and without "imperlializing" [sic] anyone.
What is Imperialism, if not actively aiding Fascists against Maoist revolutionaries? I've yet to see how you Dengite revisionist swine can defend that.
Yup, imperialism is highly contentious term that has many meanings. Socialist theory hasn't yet fully resolved an all encompassing theory that explains all forms of imperialism. The best I've seen comes from the work of Dr Jay Tharappel, a recent PhD student who has a channel going by Oriental Despot. He manages to convincingly weave together the Leninst/Hobson sense and the Warelestien world system theory sense a nice way.@@antediluvianatheist5262
No paul, you are making a liberal analysis and not a pragmatic materialist one that recognizes our perception of socialism under imperialist system of capitalism works. Not recognizing china was only few decades ago a very backwards nation is being idealistic about whether it had a choice to practice socialism in the "right way". Marxism is a science, we should base our approach off of what works. Im sorry if deng wasnt supercommunist u wanted but unless u can understand the reality of what chinese society was and foreign forces that seek to destroy it, its really not ur place to assess whether theyre socialist or not. I genuinely believe china is path that will reach socialism globally esp w successes of belt initiative and control on billionaires
Excellent conversation I think hakim may have a soft spot for non western nations. I do too but it's always good to be reminded of our biases and to look at things scientifically. Which hakim admits to here 👍🏽 I love seeing these sort of analyses as a burgeoning leftist
Personally, I think trying to assess China's loyalty to communism is a fruitless effort at this time. I think their strategy, if it is their real intention, is a legitimate one for development in a capitalist dominated world. I think it's fair to say that China's focus on itself in capitalist development is probably the best bet at bringing about a socialist state that is prepared to build socialism without the problems the Soviet Union had. Naturally, the development of capitalism alarms communists of all kinds, though we need to keep in mind that China was not and is not a fully developed capitalist nation. I think as Marx predicted, Capitalism is a hard requirement for the success of a transition to socialism. Capitalism is just the best way to create the stage for workers to take over.
Not true. Many social democrats and even right wing libertarians also argue that capitalism is a temporary acceptable evil until we reach a stage of post-scarcity (essentially communist society). The question is the CCP's loyalty to socialism, and the the values of equality and economic democracy under a dictatorship of the proletariat or workers' democracy, both within China and internationally. If China is allowing billionaires and a growing disparity in wealth, then that means it is a betrayal of the working class. Of course there is need to be allowances for realities on the ground, but not to the loss of everything. The USSR and other socialist states demonstrate that it is possible to industrialise and built socialism from a situation similar to where China started or even worse. To say China needs to resort to capitalism is demonstrably wrong and immoral, to put off an end to exploitation with a vague promise of a transition decades from now. (That's not targeted at you but rather the CCP, and Hakim's hypocrisy). If there was a proper analysis, then the key points of state capitalism, economic democracy, wealth disparity and the key differences between the Belt and Road Initiative, and capitalist imperialism would have been would be contested and proven wrong and in linewidth socialist principles (if they can, and while I'd like that, I doubt that). But no, empty promises that they have the best interests of the people at heart, and that socialism is coming. It sounds like a cop out.
@@zxil6 That may be true, idk. Don't get me wrong, I still support China today. But I'm not sure the case has been convincingly made that China had no choice but to completely reverse Maoist policies.
Yeah Hakim basically hit the nail on the head. Whether you fully trust the intentions of the CCP or not, them including a mix of state and market capitalism was the correct decision and even if the party is fully corrupted by the time they’re developed enough for socialism, they will have created the conditions necessary for it to succeed.
@@dr.ambiguous4913 I legit got into him on Reddit on Genzedong and GenZhou before they were nuked. It happened around the time he met some new friends, turned anti-china, and suddenly stopped having money troubles.
no one denies China exports capital, thats such a stupid point, obviously they make all sorts of machines for example, like tractors, that are capital all over the world. So? does that make one an imperialist? Obviously not. The same childish fixation to "statitstics" "objectively proving" x claim, without taking the qualitative step back to see if the statistics are even what is important for this question. Laughable.
18:32 Why DON'T they support other socialist countries and movements (largely speaking)? I'm not trying to argue I'm looking for information from people more educated on this than I (just wanted to clarify because, ya know, the internet and tone and shit).
Hey i gotchu. For one i agree. But to answer ur question china does not want to play cold war. One fault of the ussr is that with an expanded military spending its development stagnated and could not improve itself. Put this in perspective. By 1980. The ussr is made up of 14 countries was holding up the eastern bloc which was 8 countries. It was the only trading partner for vietnam laos cuba north korea afghanistan and angola and many more african countries and revolutions like burkina faso. They were supporting a shit ton of leftists countries. When you spend so much in military yoy dont care for the people. The ussr by the 80s was still using machinery from the 40s. And by 1990 other countries were dabbling in computers the ussr would fall behind due to being isolated from huge economies due to sanctions. Because they funded armies that ousted leaders this prompted usa agression and sanctions and mini wars. Khruschev gave castro nukes and the usa was ready to destroy cuba and send nukes to the USSR. That is fucking scary China is trying to avoid that. Its why they dont military fund leftist movement. They trade with everyone. The ussrs isolation was its downfall
@@sungod1384 Yes this makes sense with what I have learned about China in these recent months, it seems to me they are still involved in the global class war (Cold War 2.0) but are playing it much more savvy, learning from mistakes of the USSR like the situation you describe. I think that after they completely dwarf the USA as far as economy/political influence that is then when they will change their M.O. and take a more active and confrontational war with Western capitalism, maybe they might even be starting to make that pivot right now (though this is all just speculation, I have learned some more about China but I am still far from an expert). Thank you for the insight, it really all makes sense when it's presented to you all condensed like that. I'm happy that China is not being too rash and is ensuring long term success of socialism even if it means short term sacrifices.
@@sungod1384 The USSR eventually dissolved because of Revisionism spearheaded by corn boy, and the fat pig Brezhnev, with Gorbachev's government dealing the killing blow. China went revisionist with Deng Xiaoping's counterrevolution. Xi Jinping's government is just another step in a long line of revisionist swine. The fact that Jinping has shook hands with the Philippines' fascist leader, and has even said "we will unwaveringly support private economy into the future" is proof enough for me. That's not including the fact that they actively suppress Maoist guerillas in the Philippines, and India, and are even giving weapons to Saudi Arabia to wage their brutal war against Yemen.
@sungod1384 very interesting I really appreciate your analysis of this I hope one day to know enough history and theory to make similar kinds of analyses
Hakim is based. Paul Morrin is kind of a loser who can't cope with Settlers though. Watching an Irish guy try to deny his whiteness because he doesn't want to be associated with imperialism is just too funny
@@cam-gv2gf I'll give you a hint. "Whiteness" is a fictional category that was invented but has real historical impacts. You can't oppose it by pretending it never happened. You oppose the racism that "whiteness" and "not being white" was by attacking the historical legacy and its impacts in the present. Not by bitching about people taking it seriously.
Sorry, but some of the things Hakim says here are completely hypocritical and at odds with views and analysis he's said elsewhere. It's frankly embarrassing. His views here come across as overwhelmingly liberal, and in fact very similar to many liberals and social denocrats and even those further to the right who've essentially said that post-scarcity (communism) can be achieved through capitalism. However, if China is allowing the existence of billionaires and clear exploitation today then how is this not a betrayal of the principles of socialism? Hakim's analysis of the USSR and the Soviets take a totally different stance in regard to socialism or state capitalism, and suggets that this added transitional stage is not necessary at all. At best the stance Hakim takes here is heavily reformist or liberal, and he intentionally muddies the water. Every reference to white Western socialists comes across as a semi-racist cheap dismissal of legitimate concerns about the Chinese economic system. I don't give a damn what your ethnic or cultural background is if you want to analyse my country, its government and policies. You might very well be able to analyse it far better than many people who live here, and I the same for yours. The details of the CCP's policies are largely irrelevant if you actually consider yourself a Marxist, a revolutionary socialist or want to continue to buy into what the CCP is supposedly aiming for and advocating. They are allowing billionaires (even on a leash, how is that acceptable or necessary for economic democracy?) and growing inequality. Actions speak louder than words. Right now, it seems like it would be far easier to argue that the PRC is on the road to meet the same fate as the USSR, or to becoming just another social democracy. That does not seem nearly enough to push for economic equality and democracy for the citizens of China, or to actively support socialism abroad. I'm not an expert on China in the 21st century, but neither do you need to. Even if you take everything that Hakim referenced at face value. (And I'm sure there are many dedicated comrades in the CCP), hos defense of the CCP essentially boiled down to necessity, that socialiam is being put off while China develops, and vague promises to embrace socialism at a vague point in the future. A proper defense would have focused on how China was implementing and protecting socialism TODAY, how their Belt and Road policies was supporting workers and developing economies, and not just a kinder and softer imperialism. I would like to believe that the CCP was actively working towards socialism in China and globally, and that state capitalism was just a necessary temporary move that was firmly under control, but that is not what history, theory or Hakim's own analysis of socialism in the USSR or the Middle East suggest at all. If anyone actually does have sources that actually offer a proper analysis and defense of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and current Chinese policy, then I am interested and will listen or read. But Hakim offered nothing more than apologism.
"We will unwaveringly support private economy into the future", "We must not return to the old path of a planned economy" - Xi Jinping. Defend this for me Dengite.
@@plumetheum7017 Easy. 1: Nothing wrong with a private sector to the economy. At some point in the future, it's gonna go. But not this decade, or next. Also, telling everyone that it's gonna go is gonna cause trouble. 2: They are not going back to the old path of a planned economy. Which is EVERYTHING planned. They have a NEW path of a planned economy, where the majority is planned, and the little stuff like phones and clothes are not.
If state-capitalism is needed for the development of productive forces then why stop? Why would you ever want to stop it? What I mean is, it implies socialism can't.
Capitalism is great at growing, but not great at stopping when said growth becomes a detriment. Once you no longer have room to grow within your own country, you move outwards, exploiting labour and resources abroad through imperialism, eventually getting to a point where you have inter-imperial conflicts, like WW1. Even now after globalization, the Third World is kept poor to get key resources like oil, copper or gold for cheap, and any attempt to nationalize said resources are met with extreme force (i.e. Chile, Libya etc.) . You can also see it's effect on ecology through climate change, the Holocene extinction literally starting with the onset of capitalism. Infinite growth on a finite planet is not a stable economic system, it's the logic of a cancer cell. Socialism, being the next stage after capitalism, requires sufficiently developed productive forces, which China didn't have, being literally a feudal economy when the Revolution happened. Though in China's case, it's worth noting their current economic policy is based on a re-interpretation of Marx. Socialist economies have grown before without state capitalism, as is the case of the USSR, which prior to WW2 developed and industrialized at a faster rate than any first world country, even the US and Britain (though the USSR did have the NEP for a short period beforehand, as they were previously a near-feudal country too). Also, while the USSR had to endure being isolated from the world economy and needing to be self-sufficient in its Warsaw Pact bubble, China is now at the heart of the global economy, meaning no imperialist nation can actually hurt or isolate China without also hurting themselves in the process.
@@terriblehumanbeing8117 So is your TLDR take "capitalism is good for quick development in today's world but perhaps not 100% required for development"? Just trying to learn, making sure I'm following not trying to be rude!
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 Capitalism focuses on profits (this is how you get more 'capital' after all) when a technology, for example, is new, there's lots of ways to improve it, cheapen it, etc. during this time, it is easy to gain more profit by making your product better. once you get to a certain point, however, you start running out of easy ways to improve your technology, and then what? you either have to spend huge amounts of money to try to eke out that 1% productivity, or you have to find a different way to increase profits. so, what do you do? in middle-of-the-chain industries (think, semiconductors or machining), there's not much you can do besides just making your shit better or making the process cheaper - you don't interact with the end user, you interact with other very savvy businesses and manufacturers. but if you're selling finished products (iphones), you can start doing wild shit like mass advertising campaigns, planned obsolescence, etc, which makes a *lot* more profit per buck than seriously eking out more performance (though, up to a point, and of course you *do* still need to improve a little to keep with competition). As you can see, once you get to this point many companies start actively wasting money on conflicting advertisement and cheap tricks instead of putting their all into developing further, and in some industries they put *all* their money into these tricks instead of developing tech. Similarly, when a society is, say feudal, there are large swathes of unexploited resources, as far as capitalism is concerned - the land can be used for factories, mines, logistical infrastructure, the people swapped off from under-productive substenance or rent farming to factory work and such. it's easy to increase profit by just building more shit, letting more people make corps/letting corps expand and create/expand markets along with, letting the individual make new products with new tech. But then, products mature, new tech is harder to come by, and society's productive capability approaches maximum utilization, and then what? how do you make more profit? the answer: cheap tricks, moneygrubbing, pointless cash-grab products, fake money, exploitation of neighbors, etc. And this is when capitalism starts actively impeding further progress instead of helping it, technology is no longer profitable enough compared to everything else, and profit as a motive no longer works to encourage research, or, for that matter, humanitarian action.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Always glad to hear a perspective from outside of the imperial core, especially on China
This is extremely informative(for me at least)
I had no idea there was so much factionalism in the government.
Too bad they are not "official"
@@whiterabbit2932factionalism is horrible in a communist party. Capitalist roaders run the party.
How could there not be in a party of 97 million people
Hakim: I live in South east Asia and I completely agree with your view points, your Iraki perspectives give tremendous substance to this view, which i think is well supported by recent events unfortunately when I sort of mention this around Europe where I am from l it gets totally rejected.
I raki lol
As a Latinamerican I also agree. We people from undeveloped countries tend to be less idealist
Look I love Lenin but the idea of imperialism being only and exclusively the export of capital was written for and meant to be applied to a particular historical moment which did not factor in the existence of a communist superstructure dominated society among any of the major powers. The USSR exported capital for the development of the eastern bloc, was that imperialism?
Maoists called it Soviet Social Imperialism. And derided the soviet union for it.
Then proceeded to get chummy with the US.
@@akheelwaridh7488 Mao? Or Maoists? I've read a good bit of Mao and I've never seen him comment on it. Who/where can I find what you're talking about?
@@TexTalksSometimes Both actually.
The famous Mao take on the "Phony communism of Khrushchev" in the 60s. He was right about the phony communism as they wanted peaceful coexistence (but i dont blame them they had seen 3 wars from 1917 to 1953 by the time Stalin died) accused them of being revisionists (he was also right here) and sliding towards imperialism.(Disagree)
On Chinese maoists takes explicitly calling the soviet union imperialist since the 60s all the way until even 1979 theres a shit load on the marxists.org portal called Encyclopedia of the Anti Revisionist line.
They taught this in party schools well into 1977 as of this video. You know well after the whole Nixon visit.
ruclips.net/video/Nu570338zyY/видео.html
Theres tons of other maoists indian, filipino etc taking the same line. They are all on bannedthought.net
The MLM basic course by CPI maoist has a paragraph deriding soviet social imperialism while calling the Khmer Rouge genuine revolutionaries boldly fighting against the soviet imperialist satellite state of Vietnam.
Maybe these people are wrong on this. Just a hunch. xD
Under the system of global capitalism which the USSR traded under theres always unequal trade where the richer more developed country in the higher stage of production always benefits more. This cant change until theres a global socialist project AND there is comparable levels of development between regions. I wouldnt call this imperialism by any stretch.
The pamphlet Paul refers to here talks about China being the "biggest exporter of capital" aka goods and services because its the producer of the world. They have confused Monopoly of industrial and finance capital working in tandem with China being the worlds factory.They also think FDI is imperialism when literally all countries have some outflow FDI in this day and age. Hell the USSR under Lenins NEP had joint stock exchanges and FDI.
@@akheelwaridh7488 You seen very knowledgable. I've barely dipped my goes into...what to call this...geopolitics? Socialist history? And I only am familiar with like half of what you're talking about, the rabbithole for "trying to be the best communist" seems to be infinite the longer I sift through everything.
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 Trying to be the best communist is really just trying to understand the world around you and how we can change it for the better. It is a pretty long task but it's really quite easy to get to grips with the basics, I'd reccomend "What is Marxism" for an introduction and that you get involved with any local groups if you're interested as you will learn fast and genuinly be acting to improve your society.
As a Chinese Maoist I think both of you guys are making great points here.
My general points on the so called Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (SCC), socialist market economy, the 1978 economic reform, etc.:
1. It is incredbly weak as an ideology, and is directly against classical marxist theory. Its only foundation is economical development for the past 40+ years, and it has performed very well indeed.
2. Pragtism is nothing new. Any other country could implement socialism with their own characteristics but nobody succeeded. China did because it has gone through a genuine socialist revolution (both materialistically and ideologically) before the 80's that laid the very foundation required for a skyrocketing economy
3. As much as I uphold Mao's era, I think bourgeois reactions are inevitable. Any scientific socialist has to accept this: people will become tired for revolutions. Therefore I see the transition from capitalism to communism not as a single socialist period that progresses linearly towards communism, but several cycles of revolutions and reactions. I believe this is a dialectic materialistic view.
For revolutionary left who don't know the history of PRC:
Founding of PRC in 1949 = Storming of Bastille 1789
The Cultural Revolution 1966 = Jacobin revolutions 1793
Deng's rule 1980 = Thermidorian reactions 1794
Xi's rule 2012 = Brumaire coup d'etat 1799
I don't like how Paul Morrin throws terms like imperialism around as if FDI is all imperialism is. He also throws the term "imperialize" around a lot toward the end of the video, a concept I've never heard before lol.
Morrin thinks it's China's responsibility to show that it has a "progressive role to play" as opposed to throwing off the chains that have held it back for hundreds of years.
His hopes that "China ushers in a world revolution", and that being the bar of success for Chinese Socialism shows a real disconnect between the way China views itself and how Western leftists view it:
Instead of wondering what one might learn from China, Morrin expects China to deliver things to the world, deliver development, deliver socialism, do it fairly, "progressively", and without "imperlializing" [sic] anyone.
In practice it waters down the term and props up liberal bothsidesism which I wouldn't support even if I did think China was imperialist.
What is Imperialism, if not actively aiding Fascists against Maoist revolutionaries? I've yet to see how you Dengite revisionist swine can defend that.
@@plumetheum7017 That's not imperialism.
Next.
Also, that's not what China is doing.
Yup, imperialism is highly contentious term that has many meanings. Socialist theory hasn't yet fully resolved an all encompassing theory that explains all forms of imperialism. The best I've seen comes from the work of Dr Jay Tharappel, a recent PhD student who has a channel going by Oriental Despot. He manages to convincingly weave together the Leninst/Hobson sense and the Warelestien world system theory sense a nice way.@@antediluvianatheist5262
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Yes, i know who he is.
He doesn't like me, because he's homophobic, transphobic, and an asshole.
I will keep my thoughts to myself this time. This is algorithm comment.
No paul, you are making a liberal analysis and not a pragmatic materialist one that recognizes our perception of socialism under imperialist system of capitalism works. Not recognizing china was only few decades ago a very backwards nation is being idealistic about whether it had a choice to practice socialism in the "right way". Marxism is a science, we should base our approach off of what works. Im sorry if deng wasnt supercommunist u wanted but unless u can understand the reality of what chinese society was and foreign forces that seek to destroy it, its really not ur place to assess whether theyre socialist or not. I genuinely believe china is path that will reach socialism globally esp w successes of belt initiative and control on billionaires
China will push the socialism button in 2050!!! Seethe ultroids 😎
This is just garden-variety revisionist drivel.
my two favorite boys
This was my favourite answer ever!
Excellent conversation
I think hakim may have a soft spot for non western nations. I do too but it's always good to be reminded of our biases and to look at things scientifically. Which hakim admits to here 👍🏽
I love seeing these sort of analyses as a burgeoning leftist
Its almost like the CPC is doing what they are doing for a reason.
Someone loop Oscar and Michael talking about Chiyna and play this in the background. I can’t tell if it’s funny until I actually see it.
Personally, I think trying to assess China's loyalty to communism is a fruitless effort at this time.
I think their strategy, if it is their real intention, is a legitimate one for development in a capitalist dominated world. I think it's fair to say that China's focus on itself in capitalist development is probably the best bet at bringing about a socialist state that is prepared to build socialism without the problems the Soviet Union had.
Naturally, the development of capitalism alarms communists of all kinds, though we need to keep in mind that China was not and is not a fully developed capitalist nation. I think as Marx predicted, Capitalism is a hard requirement for the success of a transition to socialism. Capitalism is just the best way to create the stage for workers to take over.
Not true. Many social democrats and even right wing libertarians also argue that capitalism is a temporary acceptable evil until we reach a stage of post-scarcity (essentially communist society). The question is the CCP's loyalty to socialism, and the the values of equality and economic democracy under a dictatorship of the proletariat or workers' democracy, both within China and internationally. If China is allowing billionaires and a growing disparity in wealth, then that means it is a betrayal of the working class. Of course there is need to be allowances for realities on the ground, but not to the loss of everything.
The USSR and other socialist states demonstrate that it is possible to industrialise and built socialism from a situation similar to where China started or even worse. To say China needs to resort to capitalism is demonstrably wrong and immoral, to put off an end to exploitation with a vague promise of a transition decades from now. (That's not targeted at you but rather the CCP, and Hakim's hypocrisy).
If there was a proper analysis, then the key points of state capitalism, economic democracy, wealth disparity and the key differences between the Belt and Road Initiative, and capitalist imperialism would have been would be contested and proven wrong and in linewidth socialist principles (if they can, and while I'd like that, I doubt that). But no, empty promises that they have the best interests of the people at heart, and that socialism is coming. It sounds like a cop out.
Hakim was trying really hard at 6:20 to not say the words productive forces.
does anyone know if hakim ever made a response to the 'china is imperialist' sources Paul shared with him?
My brain is in recovery mode from taking in so many high level ideas!
Seriously tho, this is the dialectical thinking the left needs
Yea I agree 100%
I’m not sure how can you disagree with the direction they took and simultaneously say “their hands were forced” ?
Fairly sure he said that the direction that they took was not necessary for all states, but the conditions that they were in made it necessary.
@@zxil6 That may be true, idk. Don't get me wrong, I still support China today. But I'm not sure the case has been convincingly made that China had no choice but to completely reverse Maoist policies.
Yeah Hakim basically hit the nail on the head. Whether you fully trust the intentions of the CCP or not, them including a mix of state and market capitalism was the correct decision and even if the party is fully corrupted by the time they’re developed enough for socialism, they will have created the conditions necessary for it to succeed.
excellent discussion
Irritates me how paul constantly interrupts hakim when he’s trying to make a point. And Paul, imperialism is not just “when export of capital”
I got into a fight with him about it.
Yes, he really thinks that.
It's a very shallow take.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 Lmao. Did you talk with him in the comments or was it a debate or something? I’d love to suffer through that convo
@@dr.ambiguous4913 I legit got into him on Reddit on Genzedong and GenZhou before they were nuked.
It happened around the time he met some new friends, turned anti-china, and suddenly stopped having money troubles.
"Capitalism is within the party"
- MAO
So use a sorta State capitalist system to industrialize to socialism kinda am i right
That's what the Soviets did. China's just doing it longer.
comment
What was that source Paul mentioned? I couldn't understand what he said but I'm interested.
no one denies China exports capital, thats such a stupid point, obviously they make all sorts of machines for example, like tractors, that are capital all over the world. So? does that make one an imperialist? Obviously not. The same childish fixation to "statitstics" "objectively proving" x claim, without taking the qualitative step back to see if the statistics are even what is important for this question. Laughable.
you should post infrared clips🌅🦍
GORILLAS AND SUNS IN THE CHAT
Infrared takes his stuff a bit too far imo
@@robertvoncleft7132 hi Ginjeet
@@infraredfunny Having an audience that spends a good portion of their time making Cambodian genocide jokes is pretty optically bad.
@@robertvoncleft7132 damn i wish they were like that
Hakim: China is a land of contrasts
this anarkiddie is not persuaded
@fa q thank you for this new information
18:32
Why DON'T they support other socialist countries and movements (largely speaking)?
I'm not trying to argue I'm looking for information from people more educated on this than I (just wanted to clarify because, ya know, the internet and tone and shit).
Hey i gotchu. For one i agree. But to answer ur question china does not want to play cold war. One fault of the ussr is that with an expanded military spending its development stagnated and could not improve itself. Put this in perspective. By 1980. The ussr is made up of 14 countries was holding up the eastern bloc which was 8 countries. It was the only trading partner for vietnam laos cuba north korea afghanistan and angola and many more african countries and revolutions like burkina faso. They were supporting a shit ton of leftists countries. When you spend so much in military yoy dont care for the people. The ussr by the 80s was still using machinery from the 40s. And by 1990 other countries were dabbling in computers the ussr would fall behind due to being isolated from huge economies due to sanctions. Because they funded armies that ousted leaders this prompted usa agression and sanctions and mini wars. Khruschev gave castro nukes and the usa was ready to destroy cuba and send nukes to the USSR. That is fucking scary China is trying to avoid that. Its why they dont military fund leftist movement. They trade with everyone. The ussrs isolation was its downfall
@@sungod1384 Yes this makes sense with what I have learned about China in these recent months, it seems to me they are still involved in the global class war (Cold War 2.0) but are playing it much more savvy, learning from mistakes of the USSR like the situation you describe. I think that after they completely dwarf the USA as far as economy/political influence that is then when they will change their M.O. and take a more active and confrontational war with Western capitalism, maybe they might even be starting to make that pivot right now (though this is all just speculation, I have learned some more about China but I am still far from an expert).
Thank you for the insight, it really all makes sense when it's presented to you all condensed like that. I'm happy that China is not being too rash and is ensuring long term success of socialism even if it means short term sacrifices.
@@sungod1384 The USSR eventually dissolved because of Revisionism spearheaded by corn boy, and the fat pig Brezhnev, with Gorbachev's government dealing the killing blow. China went revisionist with Deng Xiaoping's counterrevolution. Xi Jinping's government is just another step in a long line of revisionist swine.
The fact that Jinping has shook hands with the Philippines' fascist leader, and has even said "we will unwaveringly support private economy into the future" is proof enough for me. That's not including the fact that they actively suppress Maoist guerillas in the Philippines, and India, and are even giving weapons to Saudi Arabia to wage their brutal war against Yemen.
@sungod1384 very interesting
I really appreciate your analysis of this
I hope one day to know enough history and theory to make similar kinds of analyses
THey do.
Just not the same way the Soviets did.
Cc...-cpc
Hakim is based. Paul Morrin is kind of a loser who can't cope with Settlers though. Watching an Irish guy try to deny his whiteness because he doesn't want to be associated with imperialism is just too funny
"whiteness" you are as bad as racists
mmmm i gotta see this guy get mad about settlers, now i know what ill be searching later lol, thanks!
@@cam-gv2gf I'll give you a hint. "Whiteness" is a fictional category that was invented but has real historical impacts.
You can't oppose it by pretending it never happened. You oppose the racism that "whiteness" and "not being white" was by attacking the historical legacy and its impacts in the present.
Not by bitching about people taking it seriously.
@@andrewmcmanus7055 educate me
irish isn't white though
Sorry, but some of the things Hakim says here are completely hypocritical and at odds with views and analysis he's said elsewhere. It's frankly embarrassing.
His views here come across as overwhelmingly liberal, and in fact very similar to many liberals and social denocrats and even those further to the right who've essentially said that post-scarcity (communism) can be achieved through capitalism. However, if China is allowing the existence of billionaires and clear exploitation today then how is this not a betrayal of the principles of socialism?
Hakim's analysis of the USSR and the Soviets take a totally different stance in regard to socialism or state capitalism, and suggets that this added transitional stage is not necessary at all. At best the stance Hakim takes here is heavily reformist or liberal, and he intentionally muddies the water.
Every reference to white Western socialists comes across as a semi-racist cheap dismissal of legitimate concerns about the Chinese economic system. I don't give a damn what your ethnic or cultural background is if you want to analyse my country, its government and policies. You might very well be able to analyse it far better than many people who live here, and I the same for yours.
The details of the CCP's policies are largely irrelevant if you actually consider yourself a Marxist, a revolutionary socialist or want to continue to buy into what the CCP is supposedly aiming for and advocating. They are allowing billionaires (even on a leash, how is that acceptable or necessary for economic democracy?) and growing inequality. Actions speak louder than words.
Right now, it seems like it would be far easier to argue that the PRC is on the road to meet the same fate as the USSR, or to becoming just another social democracy. That does not seem nearly enough to push for economic equality and democracy for the citizens of China, or to actively support socialism abroad.
I'm not an expert on China in the 21st century, but neither do you need to. Even if you take everything that Hakim referenced at face value. (And I'm sure there are many dedicated comrades in the CCP), hos defense of the CCP essentially boiled down to necessity, that socialiam is being put off while China develops, and vague promises to embrace socialism at a vague point in the future. A proper defense would have focused on how China was implementing and protecting socialism TODAY, how their Belt and Road policies was supporting workers and developing economies, and not just a kinder and softer imperialism.
I would like to believe that the CCP was actively working towards socialism in China and globally, and that state capitalism was just a necessary temporary move that was firmly under control, but that is not what history, theory or Hakim's own analysis of socialism in the USSR or the Middle East suggest at all.
If anyone actually does have sources that actually offer a proper analysis and defense of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and current Chinese policy, then I am interested and will listen or read. But Hakim offered nothing more than apologism.
Socialism doesn’t have a definition Morrin. Marx was never into definitions. China is socialism.
communism is when government does stuff, so therefore China is communis.
QED
😂
"We will unwaveringly support private economy into the future", "We must not return to the old path of a planned economy" - Xi Jinping.
Defend this for me Dengite.
@@plumetheum7017 Easy.
1: Nothing wrong with a private sector to the economy. At some point in the future, it's gonna go. But not this decade, or next. Also, telling everyone that it's gonna go is gonna cause trouble.
2: They are not going back to the old path of a planned economy. Which is EVERYTHING planned. They have a NEW path of a planned economy, where the majority is planned, and the little stuff like phones and clothes are not.
@@plumetheum7017 Supporting innovation and lifting people out of poverty 💩head. Communism can use capitalism to suit it’s own needs.
If state-capitalism is needed for the development of productive forces then why stop? Why would you ever want to stop it?
What I mean is, it implies socialism can't.
Capitalism is great at growing, but not great at stopping when said growth becomes a detriment. Once you no longer have room to grow within your own country, you move outwards, exploiting labour and resources abroad through imperialism, eventually getting to a point where you have inter-imperial conflicts, like WW1. Even now after globalization, the Third World is kept poor to get key resources like oil, copper or gold for cheap, and any attempt to nationalize said resources are met with extreme force (i.e. Chile, Libya etc.) . You can also see it's effect on ecology through climate change, the Holocene extinction literally starting with the onset of capitalism. Infinite growth on a finite planet is not a stable economic system, it's the logic of a cancer cell. Socialism, being the next stage after capitalism, requires sufficiently developed productive forces, which China didn't have, being literally a feudal economy when the Revolution happened.
Though in China's case, it's worth noting their current economic policy is based on a re-interpretation of Marx. Socialist economies have grown before without state capitalism, as is the case of the USSR, which prior to WW2 developed and industrialized at a faster rate than any first world country, even the US and Britain (though the USSR did have the NEP for a short period beforehand, as they were previously a near-feudal country too). Also, while the USSR had to endure being isolated from the world economy and needing to be self-sufficient in its Warsaw Pact bubble, China is now at the heart of the global economy, meaning no imperialist nation can actually hurt or isolate China without also hurting themselves in the process.
@@terriblehumanbeing8117 So is your TLDR take "capitalism is good for quick development in today's world but perhaps not 100% required for development"?
Just trying to learn, making sure I'm following not trying to be rude!
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 Capitalism is necessary if you're a maldeveloped country and the US will sanction you if you don't have it, IMO
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 Capitalism focuses on profits (this is how you get more 'capital' after all)
when a technology, for example, is new, there's lots of ways to improve it, cheapen it, etc. during this time, it is easy to gain more profit by making your product better. once you get to a certain point, however, you start running out of easy ways to improve your technology, and then what? you either have to spend huge amounts of money to try to eke out that 1% productivity, or you have to find a different way to increase profits. so, what do you do? in middle-of-the-chain industries (think, semiconductors or machining), there's not much you can do besides just making your shit better or making the process cheaper - you don't interact with the end user, you interact with other very savvy businesses and manufacturers. but if you're selling finished products (iphones), you can start doing wild shit like mass advertising campaigns, planned obsolescence, etc, which makes a *lot* more profit per buck than seriously eking out more performance (though, up to a point, and of course you *do* still need to improve a little to keep with competition). As you can see, once you get to this point many companies start actively wasting money on conflicting advertisement and cheap tricks instead of putting their all into developing further, and in some industries they put *all* their money into these tricks instead of developing tech.
Similarly, when a society is, say feudal, there are large swathes of unexploited resources, as far as capitalism is concerned - the land can be used for factories, mines, logistical infrastructure, the people swapped off from under-productive substenance or rent farming to factory work and such. it's easy to increase profit by just building more shit, letting more people make corps/letting corps expand and create/expand markets along with, letting the individual make new products with new tech.
But then, products mature, new tech is harder to come by, and society's productive capability approaches maximum utilization, and then what? how do you make more profit?
the answer: cheap tricks, moneygrubbing, pointless cash-grab products, fake money, exploitation of neighbors, etc. And this is when capitalism starts actively impeding further progress instead of helping it, technology is no longer profitable enough compared to everything else, and profit as a motive no longer works to encourage research, or, for that matter, humanitarian action.
@@pallingtontheshrike6374 Very great read, nicely put