20:30 funny thing is most oil refineries in the united states are not able to process shale oil, they're actually exporting shale and importing crude oil. Very small amount of shale oil is used for domestic consumption. In the 21st century they only built 7 refineries and their total capacity is less than 350 000 barrels per day (while they consume a lot more). Before 21st century there wasn't oil boom, that's why i'm purposely mentioning this.
Long time watcher. First time commenter. You say republicans want to build back industrial capacity in the united states but what evidence is there for this? I don’t see either party seriously trying to rebuild American infrastructure. Thanks!
Trump did push for cutting corners, squeezing Europe and focusing on China, aims and means later adopted by the Biden administration (with a caveat: they're not courting Russia but actively fighting it). But I agree that the emphasis is not so much in "reindustrializing" the USA (what seems impossible without bursting the housing bubble and otherwise reducing the cost of life = salaries in general terms, something that Trump is also not interested in) as it is in directly confronting "the new Germany": China.
Wanting to is different than trying to. It's easy to see the desire to do so in a manifold of republican rhetoric. It's a large factor of MAGA for example
Very insightful! I had to laugh when I heard you describing Germany's aims during WW1 - a great irony of history that the 'loser' of that war got exactly what it wanted in the end by other means.
The price of peace and not losing the First Cold War. Something had to be done to stabilize Europe and prevent it to going all socialist, a very real danger in those days in spite of Stalin's appeasement and betrayal. What they did not get was the leadership: there was a moment two decades ago when it seemed like that but the CIA-Gladio eroded that possibility bit by bit and the result is the Ukraine War and the NS fiasco, which totally destroy Germany (and Europe in general) as sovereign actors.
Thanks for this. The optimist in me thinks the educated classes are less likely to support warfare in any form now than they were 110 years ago. Hopefully in the coming decades we can implement some global structures that inhibit militarism.
China is currently in what Americas position was in WW1. A huge, industrial, prosperous and up to that point non interventionist wild card nation that tried to maintain a neutral stance. However obviously China will join the east instead of the west and is already in the process of doing so. It is America that will lose the coming global confrontation.
Excellent analysis, TY (and subbed). The only criticism I can make is about the volume: even at max. volume I have some difficulty following, I strongly suggest future videos to be recorded at quite higher volume, really.
Please give us all your knowledge comrade Cockshott I would love a reading list, life advice or anything you think young communists should know in 2024 Another general question is that should I study economics as an academic degree?
If you do study economics as an academic degree be prepared for a fight. The whole discipline is devoted to supporting capitalism. It may be better to study science and use the skills you get there to comment on economics as a critic.
@@paulcockshott8733 have you read the criticisms of the LTV ? What do you think about them (no I'm not talking about the ones that you already responded to).
@@TankieVNI think you might have to be more specific because he's already addressed several. Also, under Why the Labor Theory of Value is Right has a link to an Anwar Shaikh lecture. Shaikh has a whole course on the channel Real Econ that I'm currently working my way through. You might have a look at what he's made available as well.
@@paulcockshott8733Michael Hudson made an appearance on Richard Wolff's show a few months back, and they recounted very similar stories of the constant difficulty in their academic careers. I met a guy (a Marxist-Leninist) last year at a protest who was a grad student in the Political Economy program at The New School, but even there marxists are a tiny minority.
@@paulcockshott8733 @uuuu-h3m I agree with what Prof Cockshott has said. I'm currently in a graduate program for economics and it's a bit like being in a Catholic Seminary as an Atheist. There are a few programs in the US that are sort of sympathetic to marxism (UMass).
As Eric Hobsbawn pointed it out. Steel production is the indication of Super-Powers in the 1890. But since then, Oil, Uranium and Microchips are gone more and more Important. A lot of weapon systems simply need Computer-Chips, like Drones. And Fighters are neither produced out of Crude Steel.
Being familiar with Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, I knew before clicking this video that the answer to the question in the title was obviously "yes". But the video itself was filled with an incredible amount of important information and frankly chilling details on some of the parallels between 1914 and today. Thank you Dr. Cockshott!
It is interesting that the Kaiser saw China as a threat given the fact it could barely be called a country, divided among war lords, plagued with opium addiction, pretty much everyone was taking pieces of territory from them.
@@paulcockshott8733 Imperial japan, after it beat russia in 1905 war, yes I can see why they were concerned... illusion of european supremacy was shattered in that war (russia was considered mostly european nation at the time). Even germany back in the time knew by british example what succesful navy power meant for an empire.
Great video. I think one nuance that will hamper plans to re-industrialize the US is that culturally, young Americans, particularly native born Americans, have been cultured to shun blue collar, manual labor jobs in hopes of making it big in the fictional, financialized economy. To match China's current output of steel, we would need to increase our capacity by more than 10 fold, not just in the steel manufacturing process, but also in all the input sectors that would go into that. This requires tens of thousands of young bodies to be willing to work in industrial conditions. American young people these days will refuse to do these jobs, as our cultural psyche has already been poisoned by finance capital. So expect inflation when these massive subsidies are distributed and production constantly falls short of expectation.
In our country (Russia) obviously (as well as in rich East Asian countries) university education is 'the' end goal for every family. Especially to gain it on state cost by gaining high grades. Nowadays schools spearheaded the effort to decline people from universities. They covertly agitate for going into trades colleges instead and make it very hard to pass the State Exam. Therefore more people are moved to the trades and the industries. Of course people aren't happy about this, but salaries are slowly rising in these fields so I think in about 5~10 years the disbalance would balance itself out.
@@liliya_aseeva This is interesting. Is this push to get more students to study the trades strategic on the part of the state as they are realizing there is an over-saturation of students training for white collar professions and the state is trying to head off potential or current shortages among the blue collar workforce?
@@taylorwilson2987 Yes, they are. Currently they are trying to offset the current hot disbalance by importing Kyrgyz workers but those can be employed only in low-quality jobs. Therefore, the most understaffed jobs are actually the high-precision engineering etc. Many former Ukrainians also gladly fill those positions. However the disbalance still is present. I think it needs about 5~10 years to reach saturation. We in our people have the 'unsaid observation' that the most popular jobs are judicial, economic, medicine. Those make most money. However, from them only judicial and medical would always have clients. Meanwhile there are too many economists. Etc. I think the IT sector is also too highly valued - there is simply no need to push digitization even further, because it turns into a self-sustaining field which generates nothing more than stacks of paper jobs. However, the government still values IT sector highly enough. We will see what would come out of it.
Oh brother! The “young kids these days” rhetoric is really damn stale, comrade … somehow though I doubt you’re a socialist at all. If the capitalist titans of some mythical revitalized steel industry would pay properly and accept labor unions to guarantee the hardwork that’s demanded of them is fairly compensated and the work conditions don’t become outrageously dangerous then plenty of young people would gladly sign up for this work … to re-acquire that “American Dream” with only working one hard-ass job with a stay-at-home spouse at that home they own with a reasonable mortgage, taking care of their children … then PLENTY of young people would line up for such work. The problem isn’t the workers. It’s the employers. They won’t ever again value labor in this way as it was 100 years ago or 75 years ago. It’s the capitalist OWNERS who demand faster profits now than heavy industry like this provides unless the labor is so outrageously cheap and input costs are virtually zero. Stop maligning labor to a socialist audience. Read the room comrade.
Happy to see another valuable video presented. Thank you. I am wondering if a video explaining Modern Monetary Theory could be done in the future? I know it was developed by bourgeoisie economists and frankly I wonder why Marxists would look at it.
One thing Prof. Cockshott didn't mention is the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which was an institutional foundation for what would become the European Union.
are there any limits nowadays with steel? it is still needed in large quantities both from population (8bn) and urbanization viewpoint. Aluminium ore is pretty abundant but needs lot of energy to process. For steel simple amount used puts pressure in both energy and ore (nickel maybe?).
Added them here they are docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vTvorPbpC578FLPM93C3nMb8hCEYt2VrNoOrul8un2Ibd9AsVd_q8HMZH2e57MVS5r3vDK3HdlMR9mE/pub?start=true&loop=false&delayms=5000
Why does the current neoliberal setup rely on the decline of the domestic industrial working class? I know I will learn about this later on in The Capital (coming to the end of volume 1) but was hoping you could help me out
Because capitalists want first and foremost to make profits, the more the better, and domestically they make profits by selling overpriced stuff, notably homes but also education, healthcare, etc. And that rises the cost of life and workers cannot work for less than it costs them (us) to survive, and that drives salaries up, what may increase demand/consumption but definitely destroys the economy in all areas that can be delocalized, nowadays mostly industrial production, which are moved to cheaper countries (with a decent education level) like China, Mexico, India or Vietnam. Delocalization is not the policy but the side effect of exploitation via consume, of the "need" to create and sustain markets to make profits out of them. I'm also reading Capital (got bored in book 2, hiatus right now) and I'm not sure such things are clearly explained there: Marx was a great thinker but he may have missed some issues. He makes a very good analysis of exploitation in the production phase but not so much in sales-consume, in terms of the need to create, control or otherwise have markets to sell the produced goods. It's like (for Marx) there's always someone wanting to buy the bourgeois-controlled product, which is not true: needs must be created often (think opium addiction but also sugar and tobacco addiction in earlier phases of capitalist development, not all was "useful" cotton production, you know). Keynesians probably understood that much better and implemented their "social capitalist" remedies with some initial success but late stagflation problems. The Neoliberals that replaced them then created the CREDIT BUBBLE, on which Western and global economy relied to 2008 but to a lesser extent to this very day. It's the crisis of this Neoliberal credit bubble and "service" (especially housing) speculation which we've been dragging since 2008 and which has also indirectly fed China's miraculous rise (which relies to a massive extent on those bubbling Western markets that can be closed almost instantly via "sanctions" = postmodern protectionism).
@@LuisAldamizthank you for taking your time to spell that out for me! One question - at 23 minutes on the slide the current deindustrialized period is referred to as "parasitism" (which I assume is the reliance on "parasite" industries like the finance and service sectors. İs this trend to move towards these "service" sectors a result of what you have explained? I live in the UK and we have basically scrapped most of our productive industries and now mostly "export services".. if I have understood what you have said this is to create middle class jobs that can consume and support the consumerism needed for neoliberism.. but if these service sectors are so unproductive, how do they create better paying jobs than the traditional industry jobs? I don't know if that makes sense but this is something that has been in my head for like a year now! İt is seen as the ultimate goal of countries to transition into service economies.. but now we are seeing all these service economies having huge issues with trade deficits and over reliance on other countries..
For this first time in history they were no longer relying on a gold standard? I'm pretty sure that can't be true. I don't know the specifics, but economist Richard Wolff (who is also a historian) points out all the time that states have gone on and off of precious metal standards throughout history.
Brilliant analysis, is it worth mentioning that China currently relies on Australian coal and Iron the same way Germany once did? If so does this mean in the event of a west/east war, China has a sizable incentive to secure access to Australia resources? I know Brazil is also a large producer of raw materials but given the blue water navy disparity China is likely to have issues securing imports from South America.
Hello Paul great video. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the results from the CPC Third Plenary Session. They are intending to privatise some SOEs and increase the role of the market. Does this represent the triumph of the neoliberal social current and thus will China further abandon socialism?
Xi has zero compromise to socialism and that's well known: the only interest he has on the CCP is to use it as power lever (unlike Mao, who was a real communist and had to fight against the CCP all his life). For all practical purposes China is a fully fledged capitalist regime and behaves as such, imperialism included. It's Bismarckian or "German" style of capitalism with a strong role for the planner state and even some residual "social" crumbs for the workers and it is a Bismarckian type of imperialism as well, refraining from militaristic imperialism in most (but not all) scenarios and prefering "free trade" rather (which doesn't work well often enough: just think how 1900s Germany heavily relied on Russia as "quasi-colony" but was driven to war against it anyhow).
Hello professor Cockshott ! As I mentioned in your last video, I would like to see your take on how to transition a quote unquote market socialist economy with a conservative and to an extent reactionary culture to the socialism you proposed in "Towards a new socialism" ? And was there any theory on transition laid out by Marx ?
If you look at his other works, he looks at the conditions under which revolution has occurred. I believe there is some discussion in Arguments for Socialism. If you go through his YT catalogue, there are also some talks discussing the possibilities of agitating for direct democracy in developed capitalist countries.
@@NotKnafo I did pass it through audio equalisation on the video editor, but I may need to see if there is better gain control than that provided under windows.
@paulcockshott8733 I know French continental philosophy is somewhat outside of your field as a someone who specialises in Marxist political-economy, But (if any) what is your opinion on George Bataille and his book on political economy (the accursed share) and your opinion on 60s-70s post-structuralist French philosophy (Derrida/Deleuze/Foucault/Lyotard/Lacan/Sartre) in general? Much respect from an Australian fan. Edit : If you have the time, What is your opinion on the elections in Venezuela and the PSUV government and anti PSUV opposition supplying conflicting exit polls - Most websites that talk geopolitics often include Venezuela within the ‘Anti-NATO bloc’ I would say that if the PSUV government remains in power for the foreseeable future they should be included on any maps in future videos.
@@paulcockshott8733 I’d say he’s interesting to read, Even if one comes away disagreeing with him and critiques him, His personal theory of political-economy that breaks with Marxism that he names ‘general-economy’ has a focus on defining a particular economic stage not by how production is handled, But by how ‘consumption’ is handled, What’s being consumed being the ‘excess’ (accursed share) which is the total of over-produced commodities, time/lives of the members of the reserve army of labour and potential capital-goods that are no longer necessary for the growth/sustainment of the particular economic system. How this ‘accursed share’ is used up is what Bataille uses to define economic systems through the history of human development - Using pre-Colombian meso and north-America, feudal Tibet, feudal Europe, Feudal Arab Islam and the immediate post-war USSR and Western Europe as examples to showcase his theory. As I said ‘French’ and partially inspired the post-structuralists, So beware a lot of flowery language, But if your interested in reading it then Vol1 covers the elementals of his theory while Vol2/3 give his particular economic proposals and ‘what is to be done’ (a small pamphlet he wrote called ‘Towards real revolution’ also had some policies he advocated for as a practical implementation of his theory)
Am I the only one legitimately scared that there will be an escalation and a disastrous war in our life time, if not now then ulitmately with the climate collapse?
On the last point I would like to point out that China has a much worse demographic collapse than the west which it's industry relies on, and it's attempts to automate have been less successful. Not saying it can't keep it's industrial edge but it's going to be easier to catch up and overtake it than it might seem.
I would very much like to dispute some of these points. But I cannot. This gentleman makes a great deal of sense, more's the pity. I would love to hear, however what you think the Republicans are planning to get the US to re-industrialize. Because that's news to me!
What would you say the role of the United States Army is in all these conflicts? Spending more on the military then the next 10 Countries combined, or whatever, must still have an effect. Not saying that this numerical advantages really can sway anything (look at Iran us war games where the us marines kept losing), but just wanted your opinion on this factor.
The US currently have a huge head start in built aircraft and tonnage of ships. The Army is not very relevant since China does not plan to invade the continental USA The initial tonnage advantage would be quickly lost in a war in which the Chinese shipbuilding capacity is a couple of hundred times that of the USA. Doubtless the US could build new shipyards, but that takes time. The overmatch in industrial capacity of China versus the US is even greater than the overmatch in capacity of the US versus Japan in 1942.
I would disagree about the political of the American parties. I think the GOP is largely disorganized and lack a clear vision. Which is caused by lobbyists.
The role of nationalism is also a big cause of WW1 Where is your evidence of German empire considering Ukraine its Canada Documents, speech or any record
In addition to the Fischer book I mentioned, see www.wob.com/en-gb/books/fritz-fischer/from-kaiserreich-to-third-reich/9780367236168?msclkid=1984e756f2a016af960881f496ea682f&Wob%20-%20GBR%20-%20Bing%20-%20Standard%20Shopping%20-%20GOR%20-%20EN%20-%20XX%20-%20New%20Books%20-%20SalesRank%3A%202000001%20-%203000000&#NLS9780367236168
Early-20th century nationalism can be understood as the ideological superstructure which naturally arises from the growth of national monopolies and the subsequent inevitable competition of national capitals which occurs during the development of imperialism. In this sense it is not a "cause" of WW1 but a merely a symptom of the war's conditions.
I would be interested in a video on how US dominance over mideast oil props up the dollar. I'm not sure if you've already made a video on this in depth. I was under the impression that this was due to the petrodollar, but I had read rebuttals to this idea saying that the actual amount of (petro)dollars used to purchase oil was comparatively low compared to purchases in everything else (less than 1%), which seems persuasive, what am I missing?
No. Because AI is a scam to trick capital markets into investing in U.S tech companies. Tech companies that have offered no actual useful products in over a decade. They only have become increasingly more abusive middlemen between users and content(while invasively spying on those users)
@25:38 this chart shows excellent way when and why US has been superpower. period 1875 to 1975 is golden period. From 80s china has risen leveraging that trade deficit and smart longterm vision.
Yeah, but China has its own problems. The most chilling is an impeding demographical collapse. China is a complex country from a cultural standpoint and it cannot easily attract foreign workers. Meanwhile young chinese people all want to live in richer countries (OECD countries obviously). They do not want to work or start families in China because of the very strict pressure from parents and the society. Northeast China for example currently has more depopulation trend in percents than the neigboring Far East of Russia. If in 2000s the 'Yellow Scare' was a popular media trend in Russia, now everyone sees that China even fails to properly colonize Manchuria so it has no real impetus to start any conflicts in the North. People are fleeing southwards and in big cities. Yes, big cities can attract more young people thanks to High-Speed network, but all has its own limits. When each and every young person would work in one of Chinese megacities, the potential for growth would be fully dried out, and the bubble will pop just like it popped in Japan. It can be said that the bubble is already slowly popping - demographic trends of China are similar to Japan of 80s, and now the older cohort is prevalent, still of working age. They are interested mostly in investing their finances instead of continuing low-level jobs. This creates a huge market for domestic investments, and we see multiple financial products for domestic market. When they would be finished, the next stage would commence, and the downsizement of China would start.
@@liliya_aseeva that resembles past 20-25years in US and europe... early 2000s was starting to be seen that investment and then soon interest rates fell below 0 in 2010s. I agree china structurally cant be world power like US is. it is challenging anyone though just to keep their system running. Im saying US is in weakspot and anyone could use it... be it new ISIS/Al-qaida, Iran... whoever has interest to break it. China is pushing around IMHO to steer attention away from domestic problems. However poor people in china like in russia would grab any opportunity as they cant enter big city economy and studies. I wouldnt rule that out. It is true once cultural "valueset" has transformed to value big cities, it is very hard to change.
@@AndrewsMobs You don't know me and you are arguing. I'm living in Russia currently. Your country is even more abhorrent, homeless drugdealers, but at least it can easily attract migrants.
Sure the world is heading for a war but the situation is not similar that of 1914 as in 1914 the world was divided into 2 blocks of imperialist powers, in which a war for world dominance was held. The characteristic for todays 2 blocs are that the imperialist powers are surrounding non imperialist (Russia China Iran) powers. Completely different situations amd completely different politics to apply.
Just because one bloc is less powerful doesn't make it "non imperialist". I recommend that you read Lenin's work on the development of imperialism. Your Kautskyite position of super-imperialism is the exact issue Lenin identified with the movement in his time, it's sad to see so many fall on the same hurdles a century later.
@@benman9242 It is not about being less powerful. I am well aware of Lenin’s works and indeed you cannot see an imperialism in Russia-China or Iran in Lenin’s imperialist definition. Please give your proofs if you think they are.
@@metehanmogulkoc9450 Lenin's theory of imperialism as the period of capitalist development of which he was a contemporary is mostly set out in his work Imperialism. Perhaps it has been a while since you read it, I think his exposition of the then-new developments in the operation of monopolistic / imperialist economies, namely the growth of national monopolies, finance capital & capital exports, is rather clear. For me it is plain to see that the two main blocs of capitalist economies today (NATO vs. China, Russia, Iran etc.) both feature these developments. I am curious to hear how you think the economies of these countries work - do you believe they are still in the industrial/competitive stage of capitalist development? I think it is possible you are confusing the concept of the imperial core & periphery in the context of the export of capital with the stage of development Lenin identifies, and this is the point of your analysis where you fall into Kautsky's revisionism. Or perhaps you think these economies are not even capitalist? Thanks.
@@pitpalac I don't actually think they are less "powerful" (a notion which is wholly irrelevant to Marxist analysis), but traditionally the Kautskyite position has been to back the "underdog" bloc in inter-imperialist wars, e.g. the Central Powers during the First World War, which is why I began my comment that way. Please read my other comments if you are confused. I recommend you read Lenin's Imperialism as it happens to correct the exact position you hold now. Ironically, it seems that not only are the conditions for war repeating themselves, but also the historical theoretical errors of the movement which Lenin resolved. First as tragedy, second as farce...
The agonizingly slow speech delivery makes listening to this video painful. The repeated use of Mercator world projection maps in the graphics suggests either ignorance or intent to deceive, given how hugely the maps distort the relative size of the nations shown. This without getting into the issue of relatively population and wealth not being properly shown or suggested when one uses Mercator projection maps in this fashion. But there appear to be elements of truth in this presentation. The speaker correctly identifies the Democratic Party and that faction of the US ruling class behind it as that more inclined to a near future war, and the Republicans / Trump as more reluctant (but not unwilling after some further industrialization) to take this road.
Finding other projections for political world maps from 1900 is not easy. I could perhaps talk faster, I am used to a delivery rate for a lecture theatre
Ukraine is a large nation, as big as France with a much bigger army. Its success in defensive battles is down to their own innovations not NATO training. An ability to carry out a tenacious and protracted defence is not the same thing as being the victor.
@@ΟδυσσέαςΝοτάκης Russia has been defeated in the field multiple times by Ukraine, which only has access to minimal levels and degrees of Western equipment. This proves that the west is NOT outmatched seeing as a tiny portions of its potential can defeat Russia in the field. Like what happened in Kherson, Kharkiv, Kyiv and many other regions. What are you talking about?
@@paulcockshott8733 I didn't say they were victorious, I said they could defeated Russia in the field. And completely contrary to your claims, the Ukrainians themselves have attributed (with video evidence) their successes to the superiority of Western equipment and arms. Ukraine is tiny compared to both Russia, China, the US and NATO as a whole which should be clear as those are the factions your video focuses on. You commies aren't even bright enough to read a two sentence paragraph.
No, it is a feature of the nuclear age. Pre nuclear power it was not a thing. More recently can you give an example of a proxy war in which there was no backing of one side or both by nuclear powers.
@@paulcockshott8733 oh, if that then I'm wrong. Sorry for bothering you. Also have you read the criticisms of the empirical evidences for the LTV ? What do you think about them ?
@@benman9242 I don't see WW2 coming into things now. As I understand it, WW2 was the result of institutional/economic/political failures in the balance of power after WW1. The rise of fascism and Nazism was the cultural expression of the above mentioned failures, especially in the face of rising socialist movements in Germany at the time. WW2 was like the ultimate expression of what initially drove Germany (and the Allies) to wage WW1. If the worst case scenario occurs, and Trumpsters make the US a Christian nationalist country, then the march towards WW2 begins in earnest.
Not really. Ukraine was more reliant on that but Russia has massively developed their military-industrial complex in the post-Soviet decades, becoming (much as it was said of Prussia once): "not so much a state with an army but an army with a state". They export a lot in terms military, being that sector almost certainly second after hydrocarbons (oil and gas), their military budget has been massive for decades and the war has only emphasized that, to the point that the new Minister of Defense, who is an economist rather than someone of military background, was said to have been appointed precisely to reduce or control that excessive escalation of the budgtary militarization, which was becoming worrisome.
@@LuisAldamiz Russia also has grain and raw material exports and their military budget isn't as proportionately huge as America's, not to mention they don't have any debt. The whole gas station masquerading as a country or as you put it an army with a country stereotype is why we failed so hard trying to counter Russia. Their economy is the 4th largest in the world, they have the same number of stem graduates as the USA, and they're self sufficient, also their military is self sufficient unlike the USAs. When we stop lying about Russias capabilities we would know how to counter them but until then we will continue failing and resort to funding terrorists against them like we've been doing since Russias inception
@@testingmysoup5678 - Agricultural exports are real but not that large (USA and other Anglosaxon ex-colonies nearly monopolize the global food trade, especially cereals, except for rice), fossil fuels are massive, almost half of Russian exports by value in 2020. Russia is the second global exporter of weapons (20-21%), not far behind the USA (36-37%) and way ahead of France or Germany, which rank 3rd and 4th. The Russian military budget is very high and outranks in % of GDP that of the USA since at least 2014 (coincidentally the year of the Ukraine coup). This is the official or "narrow" military spending only, the "real" military spending could be almost double. Russia is the great power that spends the most fraction of its budget and GDP in the military, only outranked by Middle Eastern countries, none of which is a great power. As for the rest, you're surely using GDP(PPP), which is fair and dandy as long as you are autarchic (no country is anymore, except to some extent North Korea and Cuba, by force) and buy almost everything inside your state, in terms of GDP(nominal), which is the one that matters in terms of international trade, Russia ranks 11th (behind a Siberia-like country, as is Canada). I'm not trying to defame Russia, I'm trying to be realistic about what it is: its potential and its limitations. I must add that Russia is relatively strong in terms of industrial production, which may be more important than GDP. Russia occupies a weird niche of 2nd tier great power, which maybe best compares with India but not quite (totally different demographics and military, among other things) but the key feature is their military might and projection, including one of the largest nuclear arsenals on Earth and a permanent seat in the UNSC. There are other hydrocarbon and mineral producing countries but none is even remotely as heavily armed as Russia is. And that's why they can put up such a fight: they have the military might, the natural resources, a relatively strong industry and academy, the diplomatic network, etc. Arguably their weakest spot was some diplomatic naivety and mediocre intelligence services (else the Ukraine coup would have never succeeded) but maybe they're improving that too, as arguably demonstrated in the Sahel chain of "pro-Russian" coups.
It seems that you put NATO and BRICS on the same total capacity of military equipment production. This doesn't seem to be true, comparing cutting edge millitary manufacture, the US with its extensive network of contractors and government incentives seems to be able to produce far more than China, and NATO far more than BRICS in general. In terms of raw materials, very large deposits combined with WWII era rationing and a perifery of countries that are willing and able to produce in exchange for US dollars, allow the US to maintain or enlarge its trade deficit in case of an extended war.
The US spends billions on useless aircraft carriers, submarines and nuclear weapons while real wars are being fought with drones, artillery and trench warfare.
Not really. Although there's been a re-convergence after the bitter struggle of the 2016 election and the video maybe emphasizes some empty promises of "reindustrialization" and ignores the adoption of much of Trumpist foreign policy goals and praxis by the so-called Biden Administration, it's clear that the growing political division obeys to divisions within the ruling class, which always have to rally the masses anyhow (typically around unimportant matters such as trans rights vs traditional morals or whatever, Pepsi vs Coke all the time). Trump has and had in the past very clearly a more "classical empire" vision (cammouflaged as pseudo-isolationism, which is in fact ultra-metropolitanism, die-hard imperialism) vs a more distributed vision by the Dems (generally supported by European and Japanese subservient elites, which fear to be destroyed by Trumpism). However the "Biden" (Blinken) praxis is in fact Trumpism with an Ukrainian twist: Europe has been ravaged and turned into a totally captive market by the Ukraine War and (even better): European "leaders" (corrupt traitors) are clapping with their ears while their Titanic sinks (and I happen to live in that "Titanic", harsh times, very harsh). So what MAGA-2016 did was to force the US oligarchy (and by extension the European subservient one) into a semi-new paradigm, and what Biden-2020 did was to adopt that Trumpist imperial plan but operate it with an anti-Russian twist that Trump didn't want to act upon. Master strike against Europe in any case: good cop was bad cop, bad cop was also bad cop.
Quick hint: look to the top right corner of the video and hit the settings button, adjust video speed to up to two times the normal speed if your in a hurry.
20:30 funny thing is most oil refineries in the united states are not able to process shale oil, they're actually exporting shale and importing crude oil. Very small amount of shale oil is used for domestic consumption. In the 21st century they only built 7 refineries and their total capacity is less than 350 000 barrels per day (while they consume a lot more). Before 21st century there wasn't oil boom, that's why i'm purposely mentioning this.
This is an amazing perspective! Thank you. Look forward to seeing more of these videos in the future.
I hope you recover from your confusion. Communism is bad.
Long time watcher. First time commenter. You say republicans want to build back industrial capacity in the united states but what evidence is there for this? I don’t see either party seriously trying to rebuild American infrastructure. Thanks!
Trump did push for cutting corners, squeezing Europe and focusing on China, aims and means later adopted by the Biden administration (with a caveat: they're not courting Russia but actively fighting it). But I agree that the emphasis is not so much in "reindustrializing" the USA (what seems impossible without bursting the housing bubble and otherwise reducing the cost of life = salaries in general terms, something that Trump is also not interested in) as it is in directly confronting "the new Germany": China.
Wanting to is different than trying to. It's easy to see the desire to do so in a manifold of republican rhetoric. It's a large factor of MAGA for example
They don’t want to they just say it because it’s a popular thing
Chips act?
Sadly very true. Both parties seem only concerned with seizing power, but not using said power to (re)build anything.
Very insightful! I had to laugh when I heard you describing Germany's aims during WW1 - a great irony of history that the 'loser' of that war got exactly what it wanted in the end by other means.
The price of peace and not losing the First Cold War. Something had to be done to stabilize Europe and prevent it to going all socialist, a very real danger in those days in spite of Stalin's appeasement and betrayal. What they did not get was the leadership: there was a moment two decades ago when it seemed like that but the CIA-Gladio eroded that possibility bit by bit and the result is the Ukraine War and the NS fiasco, which totally destroy Germany (and Europe in general) as sovereign actors.
Yeah but has a puppet state of the American empire
It’s funny cause it is indeed true they got their eu empire and even had Britain till Britain left seeing it for the German/french empire it is
Great video as always Professor Cockshott. Would love to see you have a conversation with Michael Hudson. Are you familiar with his work?
Thanks for this. The optimist in me thinks the educated classes are less likely to support warfare in any form now than they were 110 years ago. Hopefully in the coming decades we can implement some global structures that inhibit militarism.
Intellectuals are more willing to push for war today than they ever did before.
pity education is falling in america.
China is currently in what Americas position was in WW1. A huge, industrial, prosperous and up to that point non interventionist wild card nation that tried to maintain a neutral stance. However obviously China will join the east instead of the west and is already in the process of doing so. It is America that will lose the coming global confrontation.
perhaps at face value but america didnt have a "century of humiliation" to massively influence national self image and character.
Thank you Professor Cockshott
This is a very valuable video. Thank you Prof. Cockshott.
Thanks for your valuable work professor Cockshott
great video, the future gets scarier and scarier
The sound is quite low
Always is!
Quite left you might say
Not really
It is. Still audible at max. volume but makes following difficult.
Turn the volume up
Excellent analysis, TY (and subbed). The only criticism I can make is about the volume: even at max. volume I have some difficulty following, I strongly suggest future videos to be recorded at quite higher volume, really.
Absolute banger of a video ...
A much needed intervention. The words out of my mouth, with a great deal more historical depth regarding the parallels with WWI than I was aware of.
Prof. Adam Tooze has written and lectured extensively on how important iron was to the Third Reich's thinking leading up to and during WWII.
Absolute banger video! Really appreciated this analysis
7:00 this is why Germany invented artificial fertilizer
Please give us all your knowledge comrade Cockshott
I would love a reading list, life advice or anything you think young communists should know in 2024
Another general question is that should I study economics as an academic degree?
If you do study economics as an academic degree be prepared for a fight. The whole discipline is devoted to supporting capitalism.
It may be better to study science and use the skills you get there to comment on economics as a critic.
@@paulcockshott8733 have you read the criticisms of the LTV ? What do you think about them (no I'm not talking about the ones that you already responded to).
@@TankieVNI think you might have to be more specific because he's already addressed several. Also, under Why the Labor Theory of Value is Right has a link to an Anwar Shaikh lecture. Shaikh has a whole course on the channel Real Econ that I'm currently working my way through. You might have a look at what he's made available as well.
@@paulcockshott8733Michael Hudson made an appearance on Richard Wolff's show a few months back, and they recounted very similar stories of the constant difficulty in their academic careers.
I met a guy (a Marxist-Leninist) last year at a protest who was a grad student in the Political Economy program at The New School, but even there marxists are a tiny minority.
@@paulcockshott8733 @uuuu-h3m I agree with what Prof Cockshott has said. I'm currently in a graduate program for economics and it's a bit like being in a Catholic Seminary as an Atheist. There are a few programs in the US that are sort of sympathetic to marxism (UMass).
Can you number your slides pls so they could be referred to by page #? Many thanks
I guess what it all boils down to is how much influence do the evil monsters who profit from war have?
Very interesting
Not to be too picky with the initial map, but technically Romania was neutral until 1916, and Italy was actually with the Central Powers until 1915.
I explain that about Italy
@@paulcockshott8733 yes.
As Eric Hobsbawn pointed it out. Steel production is the indication of Super-Powers in the 1890. But since then, Oil, Uranium and Microchips are gone more and more Important. A lot of weapon systems simply need Computer-Chips, like Drones. And Fighters are neither produced out of Crude Steel.
Being familiar with Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, I knew before clicking this video that the answer to the question in the title was obviously "yes". But the video itself was filled with an incredible amount of important information and frankly chilling details on some of the parallels between 1914 and today. Thank you Dr. Cockshott!
It is interesting that the Kaiser saw China as a threat given the fact it could barely be called a country, divided among war lords, plagued with opium addiction, pretty much everyone was taking pieces of territory from them.
@@ristekostadinov2820 read popular lit of the time. Try HG Wells the War in the Air. Japan and China were seen as rapidly modernising
@@paulcockshott8733 Imperial japan, after it beat russia in 1905 war, yes I can see why they were concerned... illusion of european supremacy was shattered in that war (russia was considered mostly european nation at the time). Even germany back in the time knew by british example what succesful navy power meant for an empire.
@@paulcockshott8733 Prof do you believe if the Kumintang took power that China would've modernized ? Slower , faster, none at all?
Great video. I think one nuance that will hamper plans to re-industrialize the US is that culturally, young Americans, particularly native born Americans, have been cultured to shun blue collar, manual labor jobs in hopes of making it big in the fictional, financialized economy.
To match China's current output of steel, we would need to increase our capacity by more than 10 fold, not just in the steel manufacturing process, but also in all the input sectors that would go into that. This requires tens of thousands of young bodies to be willing to work in industrial conditions. American young people these days will refuse to do these jobs, as our cultural psyche has already been poisoned by finance capital. So expect inflation when these massive subsidies are distributed and production constantly falls short of expectation.
In our country (Russia) obviously (as well as in rich East Asian countries) university education is 'the' end goal for every family. Especially to gain it on state cost by gaining high grades. Nowadays schools spearheaded the effort to decline people from universities. They covertly agitate for going into trades colleges instead and make it very hard to pass the State Exam. Therefore more people are moved to the trades and the industries. Of course people aren't happy about this, but salaries are slowly rising in these fields so I think in about 5~10 years the disbalance would balance itself out.
@@liliya_aseeva This is interesting. Is this push to get more students to study the trades strategic on the part of the state as they are realizing there is an over-saturation of students training for white collar professions and the state is trying to head off potential or current shortages among the blue collar workforce?
@@taylorwilson2987 Yes, they are. Currently they are trying to offset the current hot disbalance by importing Kyrgyz workers but those can be employed only in low-quality jobs. Therefore, the most understaffed jobs are actually the high-precision engineering etc. Many former Ukrainians also gladly fill those positions. However the disbalance still is present. I think it needs about 5~10 years to reach saturation.
We in our people have the 'unsaid observation' that the most popular jobs are judicial, economic, medicine. Those make most money. However, from them only judicial and medical would always have clients. Meanwhile there are too many economists. Etc.
I think the IT sector is also too highly valued - there is simply no need to push digitization even further, because it turns into a self-sustaining field which generates nothing more than stacks of paper jobs. However, the government still values IT sector highly enough. We will see what would come out of it.
Oh brother! The “young kids these days” rhetoric is really damn stale, comrade … somehow though I doubt you’re a socialist at all. If the capitalist titans of some mythical revitalized steel industry would pay properly and accept labor unions to guarantee the hardwork that’s demanded of them is fairly compensated and the work conditions don’t become outrageously dangerous then plenty of young people would gladly sign up for this work … to re-acquire that “American Dream” with only working one hard-ass job with a stay-at-home spouse at that home they own with a reasonable mortgage, taking care of their children … then PLENTY of young people would line up for such work.
The problem isn’t the workers. It’s the employers. They won’t ever again value labor in this way as it was 100 years ago or 75 years ago. It’s the capitalist OWNERS who demand faster profits now than heavy industry like this provides unless the labor is so outrageously cheap and input costs are virtually zero.
Stop maligning labor to a socialist audience. Read the room comrade.
Happy to see another valuable video presented. Thank you. I am wondering if a video explaining Modern Monetary Theory could be done in the future? I know it was developed by bourgeoisie economists and frankly I wonder why Marxists would look at it.
it's bourgeois garbage and does not work, read the blog 'A critique of Crisis Theory' instead. Gold still money.
Thank you professor.
good video good quality, ending feels a bit abrupt. is there a part 2?
One thing Prof. Cockshott didn't mention is the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which was an institutional foundation for what would become the European Union.
Which could be compared to the expansion of the BRICS alliance.
@@peternyc I explicitly did mention it. There is a slide on it
@@paulcockshott8733 Sorry Prof. It's not the first time that I've put my foot in my mouth.
This is such typical RUclips comment. Just blindly stating stuff.
Audio levels are too low
Also consider using a pop filter when the mic is so close to your mouth
Otherwise great video
Thank you professor
are there any limits nowadays with steel? it is still needed in large quantities both from population (8bn) and urbanization viewpoint. Aluminium ore is pretty abundant but needs lot of energy to process. For steel simple amount used puts pressure in both energy and ore (nickel maybe?).
Prof. Paul Cockshott, may l request the slides you used in this video for personal purposes (note−taking), kindly.
Thank you.
Added them here they are docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vTvorPbpC578FLPM93C3nMb8hCEYt2VrNoOrul8un2Ibd9AsVd_q8HMZH2e57MVS5r3vDK3HdlMR9mE/pub?start=true&loop=false&delayms=5000
Why does the current neoliberal setup rely on the decline of the domestic industrial working class?
I know I will learn about this later on in The Capital (coming to the end of volume 1) but was hoping you could help me out
Neoliberalism is a front for finance capital, they outsourced industrial manufacturing to the third world.
Because capitalists want first and foremost to make profits, the more the better, and domestically they make profits by selling overpriced stuff, notably homes but also education, healthcare, etc. And that rises the cost of life and workers cannot work for less than it costs them (us) to survive, and that drives salaries up, what may increase demand/consumption but definitely destroys the economy in all areas that can be delocalized, nowadays mostly industrial production, which are moved to cheaper countries (with a decent education level) like China, Mexico, India or Vietnam. Delocalization is not the policy but the side effect of exploitation via consume, of the "need" to create and sustain markets to make profits out of them.
I'm also reading Capital (got bored in book 2, hiatus right now) and I'm not sure such things are clearly explained there: Marx was a great thinker but he may have missed some issues. He makes a very good analysis of exploitation in the production phase but not so much in sales-consume, in terms of the need to create, control or otherwise have markets to sell the produced goods. It's like (for Marx) there's always someone wanting to buy the bourgeois-controlled product, which is not true: needs must be created often (think opium addiction but also sugar and tobacco addiction in earlier phases of capitalist development, not all was "useful" cotton production, you know).
Keynesians probably understood that much better and implemented their "social capitalist" remedies with some initial success but late stagflation problems. The Neoliberals that replaced them then created the CREDIT BUBBLE, on which Western and global economy relied to 2008 but to a lesser extent to this very day. It's the crisis of this Neoliberal credit bubble and "service" (especially housing) speculation which we've been dragging since 2008 and which has also indirectly fed China's miraculous rise (which relies to a massive extent on those bubbling Western markets that can be closed almost instantly via "sanctions" = postmodern protectionism).
@@LuisAldamizthank you for taking your time to spell that out for me!
One question - at 23 minutes on the slide the current deindustrialized period is referred to as "parasitism" (which I assume is the reliance on "parasite" industries like the finance and service sectors.
İs this trend to move towards these "service" sectors a result of what you have explained? I live in the UK and we have basically scrapped most of our productive industries and now mostly "export services".. if I have understood what you have said this is to create middle class jobs that can consume and support the consumerism needed for neoliberism.. but if these service sectors are so unproductive, how do they create better paying jobs than the traditional industry jobs?
I don't know if that makes sense but this is something that has been in my head for like a year now! İt is seen as the ultimate goal of countries to transition into service economies.. but now we are seeing all these service economies having huge issues with trade deficits and over reliance on other countries..
@@LuisAldamiz You know nothing about China's rise.
For this first time in history they were no longer relying on a gold standard? I'm pretty sure that can't be true. I don't know the specifics, but economist Richard Wolff (who is also a historian) points out all the time that states have gone on and off of precious metal standards throughout history.
@@MathUDX states individually yes, but for world trade no.
Brilliant analysis, is it worth mentioning that China currently relies on Australian coal and Iron the same way Germany once did? If so does this mean in the event of a west/east war, China has a sizable incentive to secure access to Australia resources? I know Brazil is also a large producer of raw materials but given the blue water navy disparity China is likely to have issues securing imports from South America.
Very insightful video, thank you
The Long Twentieth Century by Giovanni Arrighi
Hello Paul great video. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the results from the CPC Third Plenary Session. They are intending to privatise some SOEs and increase the role of the market. Does this represent the triumph of the neoliberal social current and thus will China further abandon socialism?
Xi has zero compromise to socialism and that's well known: the only interest he has on the CCP is to use it as power lever (unlike Mao, who was a real communist and had to fight against the CCP all his life). For all practical purposes China is a fully fledged capitalist regime and behaves as such, imperialism included. It's Bismarckian or "German" style of capitalism with a strong role for the planner state and even some residual "social" crumbs for the workers and it is a Bismarckian type of imperialism as well, refraining from militaristic imperialism in most (but not all) scenarios and prefering "free trade" rather (which doesn't work well often enough: just think how 1900s Germany heavily relied on Russia as "quasi-colony" but was driven to war against it anyhow).
@@LuisAldamiz Thanks for the good laugh
Hello professor Cockshott !
As I mentioned in your last video, I would like to see your take on how to transition a quote unquote market socialist economy with a conservative and to an extent reactionary culture to the socialism you proposed in "Towards a new socialism" ? And was there any theory on transition laid out by Marx ?
If you look at his other works, he looks at the conditions under which revolution has occurred. I believe there is some discussion in Arguments for Socialism. If you go through his YT catalogue, there are also some talks discussing the possibilities of agitating for direct democracy in developed capitalist countries.
@@rsavage-r2v thanks
Please get a better mic, it's too quiet to understand anything
For some reason I could not get the gain up on my mike. I have ordered a new one.
@@paulcockshott8733 maybe you could use software to boost the volume
@@NotKnafo I did pass it through audio equalisation on the video editor, but I may need to see if there is better gain control than that provided under windows.
I recommend a Blue Yeti. Best value
You left out the demographics of all these countries.
Chinese steel + pig iron production 2023: ~2 billion metric tonnes.
good lecture
@paulcockshott8733
I know French continental philosophy is somewhat outside of your field as a someone who specialises in Marxist political-economy, But (if any) what is your opinion on George Bataille and his book on political economy (the accursed share) and your opinion on 60s-70s post-structuralist French philosophy (Derrida/Deleuze/Foucault/Lyotard/Lacan/Sartre) in general?
Much respect from an Australian fan.
Edit : If you have the time, What is your opinion on the elections in Venezuela and the PSUV government and anti PSUV opposition supplying conflicting exit polls - Most websites that talk geopolitics often include Venezuela within the ‘Anti-NATO bloc’ I would say that if the PSUV government remains in power for the foreseeable future they should be included on any maps in future videos.
I have not read Battaille. Is he interesting?
I would doubt that either Venezuela, Brazil or Cuba would be other than neutràl
@@paulcockshott8733 I’d say he’s interesting to read, Even if one comes away disagreeing with him and critiques him, His personal theory of political-economy that breaks with Marxism that he names ‘general-economy’ has a focus on defining a particular economic stage not by how production is handled, But by how ‘consumption’ is handled, What’s being consumed being the ‘excess’ (accursed share) which is the total of over-produced commodities, time/lives of the members of the reserve army of labour and potential capital-goods that are no longer necessary for the growth/sustainment of the particular economic system. How this ‘accursed share’ is used up is what Bataille uses to define economic systems through the history of human development - Using pre-Colombian meso and north-America, feudal Tibet, feudal Europe, Feudal Arab Islam and the immediate post-war USSR and Western Europe as examples to showcase his theory.
As I said ‘French’ and partially inspired the post-structuralists, So beware a lot of flowery language, But if your interested in reading it then Vol1 covers the elementals of his theory while Vol2/3 give his particular economic proposals and ‘what is to be done’ (a small pamphlet he wrote called ‘Towards real revolution’ also had some policies he advocated for as a practical implementation of his theory)
Am I the only one legitimately scared that there will be an escalation and a disastrous war in our life time, if not now then ulitmately with the climate collapse?
The system has to be reset from time to time... 😑
On the last point I would like to point out that China has a much worse demographic collapse than the west which it's industry relies on, and it's attempts to automate have been less successful. Not saying it can't keep it's industrial edge but it's going to be easier to catch up and overtake it than it might seem.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 you are right about demographic decline, but they are by far the leading user of robots, so the last point is wrong
It is not repeating. Capitalism is still the underlining system, therefore similar stuff happens
I would very much like to dispute some of these points. But I cannot. This gentleman makes a great deal of sense, more's the pity.
I would love to hear, however what you think the Republicans are planning to get the US to re-industrialize. Because that's news to me!
Thanks
Magic number is 111 so wait a little bit and you can have your war
Do not worry the Robot Reichw ill save making by purging it! :D
New Zealand?
What would you say the role of the United States Army is in all these conflicts? Spending more on the military then the next 10
Countries combined, or whatever, must still have an effect. Not saying that this numerical advantages really can sway anything (look at Iran us war games where the us marines kept losing), but just wanted your opinion on this factor.
The US currently have a huge head start in built aircraft and tonnage of ships. The Army is not very relevant since China does not plan to invade the continental USA
The initial tonnage advantage would be quickly lost in a war in which the Chinese shipbuilding capacity is a couple of hundred times that of the USA.
Doubtless the US could build new shipyards, but that takes time.
The overmatch in industrial capacity of China versus the US is even greater than the overmatch in capacity of the US versus Japan in 1942.
I would disagree about the political of the American parties. I think the GOP is largely disorganized and lack a clear vision. Which is caused by lobbyists.
The role of nationalism is also a big cause of WW1
Where is your evidence of German empire considering Ukraine its Canada
Documents, speech or any record
In addition to the Fischer book I mentioned, see www.wob.com/en-gb/books/fritz-fischer/from-kaiserreich-to-third-reich/9780367236168?msclkid=1984e756f2a016af960881f496ea682f&Wob%20-%20GBR%20-%20Bing%20-%20Standard%20Shopping%20-%20GOR%20-%20EN%20-%20XX%20-%20New%20Books%20-%20SalesRank%3A%202000001%20-%203000000&#NLS9780367236168
Early-20th century nationalism can be understood as the ideological superstructure which naturally arises from the growth of national monopolies and the subsequent inevitable competition of national capitals which occurs during the development of imperialism. In this sense it is not a "cause" of WW1 but a merely a symptom of the war's conditions.
part 2?
I would be interested in a video on how US dominance over mideast oil props up the dollar. I'm not sure if you've already made a video on this in depth. I was under the impression that this was due to the petrodollar, but I had read rebuttals to this idea saying that the actual amount of (petro)dollars used to purchase oil was comparatively low compared to purchases in everything else (less than 1%), which seems persuasive, what am I missing?
When you will hear a old holy man calling you something,it might be having truth,he is experience in history
Excellent analysis. Are you planning to do a video on the new developments in AI and their potential economic consequences?
No. Because AI is a scam to trick capital markets into investing in U.S tech companies. Tech companies that have offered no actual useful products in over a decade. They only have become increasingly more abusive middlemen between users and content(while invasively spying on those users)
Proxy war is a stupid concept. The US was propping up colonial regimes, and the USSR was supporting national liberation struggles, communist or not.
Colonial Chile?
I hear a helicopter.
Colonial all of latin america during condor plan lol
USSR supported fascist and communist regimes, USA supported rebels and authoritarian coups.
@25:38 this chart shows excellent way when and why US has been superpower. period 1875 to 1975 is golden period. From 80s china has risen leveraging that trade deficit and smart longterm vision.
Yeah, but China has its own problems. The most chilling is an impeding demographical collapse. China is a complex country from a cultural standpoint and it cannot easily attract foreign workers. Meanwhile young chinese people all want to live in richer countries (OECD countries obviously). They do not want to work or start families in China because of the very strict pressure from parents and the society. Northeast China for example currently has more depopulation trend in percents than the neigboring Far East of Russia. If in 2000s the 'Yellow Scare' was a popular media trend in Russia, now everyone sees that China even fails to properly colonize Manchuria so it has no real impetus to start any conflicts in the North. People are fleeing southwards and in big cities. Yes, big cities can attract more young people thanks to High-Speed network, but all has its own limits. When each and every young person would work in one of Chinese megacities, the potential for growth would be fully dried out, and the bubble will pop just like it popped in Japan.
It can be said that the bubble is already slowly popping - demographic trends of China are similar to Japan of 80s, and now the older cohort is prevalent, still of working age. They are interested mostly in investing their finances instead of continuing low-level jobs. This creates a huge market for domestic investments, and we see multiple financial products for domestic market. When they would be finished, the next stage would commence, and the downsizement of China would start.
@@liliya_aseeva that resembles past 20-25years in US and europe... early 2000s was starting to be seen that investment and then soon interest rates fell below 0 in 2010s. I agree china structurally cant be world power like US is. it is challenging anyone though just to keep their system running. Im saying US is in weakspot and anyone could use it... be it new ISIS/Al-qaida, Iran... whoever has interest to break it. China is pushing around IMHO to steer attention away from domestic problems. However poor people in china like in russia would grab any opportunity as they cant enter big city economy and studies. I wouldnt rule that out. It is true once cultural "valueset" has transformed to value big cities, it is very hard to change.
@@liliya_aseeva Thanks for the good laugh
@@effexon She is confusing China and Russia with america, projecting all of america's issues onto them.
@@AndrewsMobs You don't know me and you are arguing. I'm living in Russia currently. Your country is even more abhorrent, homeless drugdealers, but at least it can easily attract migrants.
super nato is just the west bloc
Sure the world is heading for a war but the situation is not similar that of 1914 as in 1914 the world was divided into 2 blocks of imperialist powers, in which a war for world dominance was held. The characteristic for todays 2 blocs are that the imperialist powers are surrounding non imperialist (Russia China Iran) powers. Completely different situations amd completely different politics to apply.
Just because one bloc is less powerful doesn't make it "non imperialist". I recommend that you read Lenin's work on the development of imperialism. Your Kautskyite position of super-imperialism is the exact issue Lenin identified with the movement in his time, it's sad to see so many fall on the same hurdles a century later.
@@benman9242 It is not about being less powerful. I am well aware of Lenin’s works and indeed you cannot see an imperialism in Russia-China or Iran in Lenin’s imperialist definition. Please give your proofs if you think they are.
@@metehanmogulkoc9450 Lenin's theory of imperialism as the period of capitalist development of which he was a contemporary is mostly set out in his work Imperialism. Perhaps it has been a while since you read it, I think his exposition of the then-new developments in the operation of monopolistic / imperialist economies, namely the growth of national monopolies, finance capital & capital exports, is rather clear. For me it is plain to see that the two main blocs of capitalist economies today (NATO vs. China, Russia, Iran etc.) both feature these developments. I am curious to hear how you think the economies of these countries work - do you believe they are still in the industrial/competitive stage of capitalist development? I think it is possible you are confusing the concept of the imperial core & periphery in the context of the export of capital with the stage of development Lenin identifies, and this is the point of your analysis where you fall into Kautsky's revisionism. Or perhaps you think these economies are not even capitalist? Thanks.
@@metehanmogulkoc9450
also, he should provide proofs why he thinks russia, china and iran are "less powerful" than imperialist nato western powers.
@@pitpalac I don't actually think they are less "powerful" (a notion which is wholly irrelevant to Marxist analysis), but traditionally the Kautskyite position has been to back the "underdog" bloc in inter-imperialist wars, e.g. the Central Powers during the First World War, which is why I began my comment that way. Please read my other comments if you are confused. I recommend you read Lenin's Imperialism as it happens to correct the exact position you hold now. Ironically, it seems that not only are the conditions for war repeating themselves, but also the historical theoretical errors of the movement which Lenin resolved. First as tragedy, second as farce...
The agonizingly slow speech delivery makes listening to this video painful. The repeated use of Mercator world projection maps in the graphics suggests either ignorance or intent to deceive, given how hugely the maps distort the relative size of the nations shown. This without getting into the issue of relatively population and wealth not being properly shown or suggested when one uses Mercator projection maps in this fashion. But there appear to be elements of truth in this presentation. The speaker correctly identifies the Democratic Party and that faction of the US ruling class behind it as that more inclined to a near future war, and the Republicans / Trump as more reluctant (but not unwilling after some further industrialization) to take this road.
Finding other projections for political world maps from 1900 is not easy. I could perhaps talk faster, I am used to a delivery rate for a lecture theatre
Training so outdated that a tiny nation can defeat Russia in the field. That seems to be the opposite of what you are claiming.
Ukraine is a large nation, as big as France with a much bigger army. Its success in defensive battles is down to their own innovations not NATO training. An ability to carry out a tenacious and protracted defence is not the same thing as being the victor.
Ukraine is losing the war. What are you talking about?
@@ΟδυσσέαςΝοτάκης Russia has been defeated in the field multiple times by Ukraine, which only has access to minimal levels and degrees of Western equipment. This proves that the west is NOT outmatched seeing as a tiny portions of its potential can defeat Russia in the field. Like what happened in Kherson, Kharkiv, Kyiv and many other regions.
What are you talking about?
@@paulcockshott8733 I didn't say they were victorious, I said they could defeated Russia in the field. And completely contrary to your claims, the Ukrainians themselves have attributed (with video evidence) their successes to the superiority of Western equipment and arms.
Ukraine is tiny compared to both Russia, China, the US and NATO as a whole which should be clear as those are the factions your video focuses on.
You commies aren't even bright enough to read a two sentence paragraph.
@@boufns8 Again, Ukraine is losing the war, a few success here and there isn't changing the overall picture.
3:06 is it necessarily two nuclear powers ? Shouldn't it just be two powers ?
No, it is a feature of the nuclear age. Pre nuclear power it was not a thing. More recently can you give an example of a proxy war in which there was no backing of one side or both by nuclear powers.
@@paulcockshott8733 oh, if that then I'm wrong. Sorry for bothering you.
Also have you read the criticisms of the empirical evidences for the LTV ? What do you think about them ?
@@TankieVN Could you provide a link to the critics you reference?
@31:28 where is that 10x amount vs anyone else in china going? their economy started decline due to covid measures and is in freefall since 2023.
It recovered from the lockdowns fairly quickly, no it is not in freefall.
LOL
WW1 all over again - capitalist bloc vs. capitalist bloc.
And 2nd World War
@@benman9242 I don't see WW2 coming into things now. As I understand it, WW2 was the result of institutional/economic/political failures in the balance of power after WW1. The rise of fascism and Nazism was the cultural expression of the above mentioned failures, especially in the face of rising socialist movements in Germany at the time. WW2 was like the ultimate expression of what initially drove Germany (and the Allies) to wage WW1. If the worst case scenario occurs, and Trumpsters make the US a Christian nationalist country, then the march towards WW2 begins in earnest.
@@peternyc No it will be a Kamala dictatorship.
In the war in Ukraine, hasn’t most Russian equipment come from soviet era deep storage?
They're all updated so not exactly
Not really. Ukraine was more reliant on that but Russia has massively developed their military-industrial complex in the post-Soviet decades, becoming (much as it was said of Prussia once): "not so much a state with an army but an army with a state". They export a lot in terms military, being that sector almost certainly second after hydrocarbons (oil and gas), their military budget has been massive for decades and the war has only emphasized that, to the point that the new Minister of Defense, who is an economist rather than someone of military background, was said to have been appointed precisely to reduce or control that excessive escalation of the budgtary militarization, which was becoming worrisome.
@@LuisAldamiz Russia also has grain and raw material exports and their military budget isn't as proportionately huge as America's, not to mention they don't have any debt. The whole gas station masquerading as a country or as you put it an army with a country stereotype is why we failed so hard trying to counter Russia. Their economy is the 4th largest in the world, they have the same number of stem graduates as the USA, and they're self sufficient, also their military is self sufficient unlike the USAs. When we stop lying about Russias capabilities we would know how to counter them but until then we will continue failing and resort to funding terrorists against them like we've been doing since Russias inception
@@testingmysoup5678 - Agricultural exports are real but not that large (USA and other Anglosaxon ex-colonies nearly monopolize the global food trade, especially cereals, except for rice), fossil fuels are massive, almost half of Russian exports by value in 2020. Russia is the second global exporter of weapons (20-21%), not far behind the USA (36-37%) and way ahead of France or Germany, which rank 3rd and 4th.
The Russian military budget is very high and outranks in % of GDP that of the USA since at least 2014 (coincidentally the year of the Ukraine coup). This is the official or "narrow" military spending only, the "real" military spending could be almost double. Russia is the great power that spends the most fraction of its budget and GDP in the military, only outranked by Middle Eastern countries, none of which is a great power.
As for the rest, you're surely using GDP(PPP), which is fair and dandy as long as you are autarchic (no country is anymore, except to some extent North Korea and Cuba, by force) and buy almost everything inside your state, in terms of GDP(nominal), which is the one that matters in terms of international trade, Russia ranks 11th (behind a Siberia-like country, as is Canada).
I'm not trying to defame Russia, I'm trying to be realistic about what it is: its potential and its limitations. I must add that Russia is relatively strong in terms of industrial production, which may be more important than GDP. Russia occupies a weird niche of 2nd tier great power, which maybe best compares with India but not quite (totally different demographics and military, among other things) but the key feature is their military might and projection, including one of the largest nuclear arsenals on Earth and a permanent seat in the UNSC. There are other hydrocarbon and mineral producing countries but none is even remotely as heavily armed as Russia is. And that's why they can put up such a fight: they have the military might, the natural resources, a relatively strong industry and academy, the diplomatic network, etc. Arguably their weakest spot was some diplomatic naivety and mediocre intelligence services (else the Ukraine coup would have never succeeded) but maybe they're improving that too, as arguably demonstrated in the Sahel chain of "pro-Russian" coups.
It seems that you put NATO and BRICS on the same total capacity of military equipment production. This doesn't seem to be true, comparing cutting edge millitary manufacture, the US with its extensive network of contractors and government incentives seems to be able to produce far more than China, and NATO far more than BRICS in general.
In terms of raw materials, very large deposits combined with WWII era rationing and a perifery of countries that are willing and able to produce in exchange for US dollars, allow the US to maintain or enlarge its trade deficit in case of an extended war.
You are delusional.
The US spends billions on useless aircraft carriers, submarines and nuclear weapons while real wars are being fought with drones, artillery and trench warfare.
@31:50 Utter nonsense.
Not really. Although there's been a re-convergence after the bitter struggle of the 2016 election and the video maybe emphasizes some empty promises of "reindustrialization" and ignores the adoption of much of Trumpist foreign policy goals and praxis by the so-called Biden Administration, it's clear that the growing political division obeys to divisions within the ruling class, which always have to rally the masses anyhow (typically around unimportant matters such as trans rights vs traditional morals or whatever, Pepsi vs Coke all the time). Trump has and had in the past very clearly a more "classical empire" vision (cammouflaged as pseudo-isolationism, which is in fact ultra-metropolitanism, die-hard imperialism) vs a more distributed vision by the Dems (generally supported by European and Japanese subservient elites, which fear to be destroyed by Trumpism). However the "Biden" (Blinken) praxis is in fact Trumpism with an Ukrainian twist: Europe has been ravaged and turned into a totally captive market by the Ukraine War and (even better): European "leaders" (corrupt traitors) are clapping with their ears while their Titanic sinks (and I happen to live in that "Titanic", harsh times, very harsh).
So what MAGA-2016 did was to force the US oligarchy (and by extension the European subservient one) into a semi-new paradigm, and what Biden-2020 did was to adopt that Trumpist imperial plan but operate it with an anti-Russian twist that Trump didn't want to act upon. Master strike against Europe in any case: good cop was bad cop, bad cop was also bad cop.
What is?
Speak faster I don't have all day
Quick hint: look to the top right corner of the video and hit the settings button, adjust video speed to up to two times the normal speed if your in a hurry.
I have all day for some valuable analysis
Amazing introspect