Historians Stephen Kotkin and Niall Ferguson: On Xi’s China and the uncertain future of the CCP

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
  • This video presents edited clips from an interview with Professor Stephen Kotkin, one of America’s preeminent historians, academic and author. Kotkin has been a professor of history and International Affairs at Princeton since 1989, and is a Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.
    The interview- entitled “Pesci-ent Knowledge: Stephen Kotkin on Xi’s China, Putin’s Russia” - was conducted in November, 2022 by The Hoover Institution’s “GoodFellows”, a panel consisting of senior fellows -- John Cochrane, Niall Ferguson, and H.R. McMaster - that focuses on the social, economic, and geostrategic ramifications of our changing world.
    The panel interview touched on a number of topics, including Russia, Putin and Ukraine. This video has edited out the parts of the original one hour interview to include only the segments pertaining to China.
    For books (and Kindle e-book and audio versions), click the below links. As a participant in Amazon’s Associate program, I may earn a small commission for qualifying purchases made through these links :
    STEPHEN KOTKIN BOOKS:
    “Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928” by Stephen Kotkin (Pulitzer Prize finalist for biography):
    amzn.to/4duyjbQ
    “Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941” by Stephen Kotkin (“Monumental.” -The New York Times Book Review):
    amzn.to/4dHp5sV
    “Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000” by Stephen Kotkin. ("The clearest picture we have to date of the post-Soviet landscape.” --The New Yorker):
    amzn.to/3Wz58gI
    “Uncivil Society: 1989 and the Implosion of the Communist Establishment” by Stephen Kotkin:
    amzn.to/3SHP8rC
    "Documenting Communism: The Hoover Project to Microfilm and Publish the Soviet Archives” by Stephen Kotkin:
    amzn.to/3WJFk1w
    Referenced and/or recommended by Stephen Kotkin:
    "Invisible China" by Scott Rozelle (“Stunningly researched.” -The Economist, Best Books of the Year, UK):
    amzn.to/3SLbTLw
    “How The Farmers Changed China: Power Of The People” by Kate Xiao Zhou:
    amzn.to/4cgN8xG
    “Calamity and Reform in China: State, Rural Society, and Institutional Change Since the Great Leap Famine” by Dali L. Yang:
    amzn.to/46IROv5
    NIALL FERGUSON BOOKS:
    "Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe” by Niall Ferguson (“Insightful, productively provocative and downright brilliant.” - New York Times Book Review):
    amzn.to/3AkHqO0
    “The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World” by Niall Ferguson (New York Times bestseller):
    amzn.to/3YGoUK3
    “The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West” by Niall Ferguson (New York Times bestseller):
    amzn.to/4ckFD8X
    “Civilization: The West and the Rest” by Niall Ferguson (New York Times bestseller):
    amzn.to/3WK2JA7
    “The Square and the Tower: Networks and Power, from the Freemasons to Facebook” by Niall Ferguson (New York Times bestseller):
    amzn.to/3WG5jXF
    “The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money's Prophets: 1798-1848” by Niall Ferguson (one of BusinessWeek’s Best Books of the Year):
    amzn.to/3SK6cgX
    “The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World's Banker” by Niall Ferguson (a New York Times notable book):
    amzn.to/3X0UfGf
    “Kissinger: 1923-1968: The Idealist” by Niall Ferguson (Winner of the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Book Award):
    amzn.to/4ckFhz9
    "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power” by Niall Ferguson (a New York Times notable book):
    amzn.to/3SJcL3e
    “Is This the End of the Liberal International Order?: The Munk Debate on Geopolitics” by Niall Ferguson and Fareed Zakaria:
    amzn.to/3SKfkSI
    GENERAL H.R. McMASTER BOOKS:
    “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World” (New York Times bestseller) by H.R. McMaster (New York Times bestseller):
    amzn.to/3WEq5a9
    “At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House” by H.R. McMaster:
    amzn.to/3LWWvYG
    “Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam” by H.R. McMaster (New York Times bestseller):
    amzn.to/3Wz5LXC
    HOOVER INSTITUTION:
    “The Human Prosperity Project: Essays on Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism from the Hoover Institution”
    amzn.to/4fIgLL2

Комментарии • 46

  • @AsiaObserver
    @AsiaObserver  Месяц назад +4

    What do you think of professor Kotkin, and the panel’s, discussion? Where did they get it right and wrong?

    • @labanyu
      @labanyu Месяц назад

      @@AsiaObserver It would be nice if any of these dumdums spoke… say… 10 words of Mandarin.

    • @cooper1819
      @cooper1819 Месяц назад +4

      Think professor Kotkin is very knowledgeable on Russian and European history. However his views on China through the "Russian Communist lens" rather than through Chinese or East Asia (Korean, Japanese) does not show good understanding. Like visibly frail, Hu Jintao, should look at from how East Asian will take care of their elderly at the main table, and not those "small moves to push papers -> which will clearly be publicized. Its communal thinking rather than individualistic".
      And on Deng opening up, he was following Singapore and South East Asia after his 1978 visit to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, that help him open up. From 80s onwards, there were like 10,000 Chinese officials that visited Singapore (Only majority Chinese population country outside China/Taiwan) to learn. Probably if professor Kotkin reads on Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore) on China, could have different view. BTW, Singapore is largest foreign investor in China for many years. And just look at the business environment, SOE, sovereign funds, city developing and etc.
      The CCP / Chinese government tries to operate like Vatican city, the oldest, continuous organization, which was recognized by Singapore's Lee in 80s as most successful organization with good succession.

    • @fremonamultimedia4264
      @fremonamultimedia4264 Месяц назад +1

      @@cooper1819 No, he is knowledgeable on Stalin. That is it.

    • @jstasiak2262
      @jstasiak2262 Месяц назад +2

      I agree with the previous commenter: Deng Xioping’s model for reform and opening up in China was Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, not Japan, Korea or Taiwan.
      Under Mr. Lee, Singapore went from a third world backwater with no natural resources in 1965 to a first world Asian economic and technological powerhouse by 1978. Deng had visited Singapore in the 1920s and was astounded by the changes that he saw when he visited again in 1978. Singapore was and remains an authoritarian police state veneered with the trappings of “democracy,” but it is clean, modern and its people are well disciplined, well educated and extremely capable. Mr. Lee attracted foreign investment from Japan, Taiwan and the United States and built Singapore into what it is today. That is what Deng sought to emulate. As the previous commenter pointed out, China still sends its lower level public officials to Singapore to learn public administration. This is all very well documented.
      Also, the Chinese Communist Party is not and never was monolithic. There was always tension between Maoist ideological hard liners (as exemplified by Mao, Lin Biao, Jaing Quing and the “Gang of Four” and the moderate economic pragmatists and reformers (as exemplified by Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping). Both Liu and Deng were humiliated and purged from the CCP for being “Capitalist Roaders.” Liu, who was once the Paramount leader of China after Mao disgraced himself during the “Great Leap Forward,” tried to institute modest capitalist economic reforms, but was purged and died in prison. Deng, who was purged three times by the Maoist hard liners, was brought back from rustication by senior Chinese Marshals who were sick and tired Maoist idiocy. When Deng got control over the CCP, he purged the Maoist hard liners and instituted the reforms that he saw in Singapore.
      Although there was economic reform in China, there was never political reform. Even under Deng, the CCP’s control of internal politics remained absolute. It was Deng who ordered the crackdown at Tiananmen Square in June 1989.
      It is the CCP that gave China political unity and stability that were essential for its economic success. Mr. McMaster does not want to give the CCP the credit for China’s success that it rightly deserves. Without the CCP, China would have imploded due to factionalism.
      Until 2008, the Chinese greatly admired the US economic system and tried to emulate it. After the global financial crisis of 2008, it became clear that the US economy was a Ponzi scheme and the Chinese went their own way economically.
      In 2012, the hard liners became ascendant again and Xi Jinping came to power. The result is Leninism (which never went away) along with traditional Chinese Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism retrofitted with Marxist terminology.

    • @TPratchett
      @TPratchett Месяц назад +1

      Hi @asiaobserver, what do you think about the Wumao reaction to your channel? They're not as prevalent on your source material's channels.

  • @capitalist4life
    @capitalist4life 6 дней назад +2

    He resisted the “Hu’s on first” joke

  • @samc1497
    @samc1497 Месяц назад +4

    Such a great episode, so glad you invite these wonderful guests. Four old men, at the twilight of their lives. Witnessing the dawn of Millenia unfolds in front of them, frightened and confused, while trying to cope with the reality of a brave new world. It's one thing to read it from the history books as it happened countless time in the past, it's something else to witness with my own eyes.

  • @jamesburke3803
    @jamesburke3803 Месяц назад +3

    This is two years old @!!

  • @alexd5128
    @alexd5128 26 дней назад

    It was OBVIOUSLY premeditated because when Hu was getting dragged out, EVERYONE was LOOKING STRAIGHT AHEAD EMOTIONLESSLY! NOT a SINGLE PERSON even turned his head to investigate what was happening.

  • @johnmaisonneuve9057
    @johnmaisonneuve9057 Месяц назад +1

    Something seems missing with Prof. Kotkin’s presentation, namely the fact that many US corporations going to China, opening factories by the thousands in order to take advantage of extremely low wages in China. By doing that, China is able to ‘steal’, appropriate 20th century technology etc. from the West. Thus, the pricing due to extremely low wage costs provided China, not its people, but the upper party echelon to enormously benefit. Certainly ordinary workers and people also recd advantages.

    • @Heinakuhi
      @Heinakuhi 6 дней назад

      Thats creed on any level of society and no one cares until problem is in front of your doorstep

  • @chrisrecord5625
    @chrisrecord5625 Месяц назад +1

    Kotkin is terrific, the others "meh"

  • @user-br5qu9uj9b
    @user-br5qu9uj9b Месяц назад

    His name is Hu or Who? Chinese communism is different from Russian because it has different history, culture, religion, etc. Before the communism concept took over in the region. It would be a mistake to underestimate Chinese innovation, engineering, educational drive, and greed.

  • @zz3410
    @zz3410 Месяц назад

    Common prosperity wasn't mentioned in the third party plenum...dun dun dun dun.

  • @rolandwong9306
    @rolandwong9306 Месяц назад +4

    The presentation is US-centric. China’s rise is a recognition that pragmatism is more important than ideology in moving the country forward. But the ideology of socialism is not dead. Capitalism, US-style, does not rule in China. Kotkin’s “strangling the private sector” is a Western interpretation of how China works.
    He portrays the magnanimous US as agreeing that China should join the WTO. What the US takes out of the left pocket is replaced by a much larger financial reward for the US agriculture, financial, and telecommunications sectors in the right pocket.
    The US realizes that corporations and capitalism are, at best, poor proxies for setting a country’s policy. It now responds with tariffs, sanctions, and protectionism. It also takes a page from the China book to support its industries with the Chips and Inflation Reduction Acts.

    • @libertarianPinoy
      @libertarianPinoy Месяц назад

      Capitalism requires level playing fields and rule of law.
      The fact that capitalist incentives can be distorted by government regulations is more a testiment to China's bad faith tactics than inner failings of Capitalism.

  • @go0ot
    @go0ot Месяц назад +1

    Ferguson is just generalizing others' tired old talking points on economy & that's his specialty. Kotkin is a master in the old sense of holding court, his analyses are spot on too & Cherry picks key historic relevant pivotal factors. And knows how to entertain too.

  • @zhanglan6568
    @zhanglan6568 Месяц назад

    As a Chinese who has been educated in the US, I feel it is kind of a pity that so many top US specialists got China so wrong.

    • @samc1497
      @samc1497 Месяц назад

      You must be young and naive. They did not get China so wrong but merely got themselves so right.

    • @zhanglan6568
      @zhanglan6568 Месяц назад

      @@samc1497 I may be naive but not young. But if the experts pretend to get China right, it will lead to a disaster for both countries or even the world.

  • @myrisk123
    @myrisk123 Месяц назад +1

    has he got a bandage on his right ear like Trump?

    • @AsiaObserver
      @AsiaObserver  Месяц назад +3

      Ha, I noticed that too. I have no idea if he also has a bandage on his ear….but the podcast was filmed on November, 2022.

    • @myrisk123
      @myrisk123 Месяц назад

      @@AsiaObserver THANK YOU

  • @fremonamultimedia4264
    @fremonamultimedia4264 Месяц назад +6

    The U.S. really needs to have China experts who really understand not just Chinese history but also the Chinese mentality. I heard Stephen Kotkin badmouthing China’s civil service exam. Ignorant! He doesn’t know such exams also exist in South Korea and have been very effective in producing efficient civil servants. This is called jealousy. This is the question the average American has to ask themselves, “We were told that communism cannot achieve the kind of growth that China managed to achieve; what happened? We were lied to. Either China is not a communist country or communism is so effective that we need our version of communism at home“. Carefully listen all so called professors bashing China day in day out; they are incoherent.

    • @josephzhang1797
      @josephzhang1797 Месяц назад +1

      when you have done climbing to the academic ladder, then the whole process itself polishes yourself into certain type. According to his lecture/speech, I found him in many easy history parts get wrong. It makes me wonder, for example compared to like Stephen Walt or John Mearsheimer, how can they are so ideological and biased.

    • @TPratchett
      @TPratchett Месяц назад

      Okay wumao boomer, turn off the computer before you need your blood pressure meds.

  • @kennethmorrison7689
    @kennethmorrison7689 25 дней назад +1

    Kotkin & Ferguson: two peas in a pod. Both conservative suporters of US imperalism.

  • @MegaLmae
    @MegaLmae Месяц назад +1

    There is more uncertainty in America. A 20-year old nearly wiped out your future president. November will be chaotic

  • @myrisk123
    @myrisk123 Месяц назад

    What country is a Meritocracy in the world today?

  • @folag
    @folag 14 дней назад

    Eminent American historian being a SIMPLETON.

  • @labanyu
    @labanyu Месяц назад +1

    Bwahahahaha… wypipos… plz… stop it…

    • @AsiaObserver
      @AsiaObserver  Месяц назад +1

      Thanks so much for your insightful commentary- you’ve given us all a lot to ponder. I only wish you could’ve joined the panel discussion so we could all be enlightened by more of your pearls of wisdom about geopolitics and wypipos.

    • @labanyu
      @labanyu Месяц назад

      @@AsiaObserver It would be nice if any of these dumdums spoke… say… 10 words of Mandarin.

    • @labanyu
      @labanyu Месяц назад

      @@AsiaObserverIf you were only so lucky