Why China cannot abandon communism

[@CaspianReport]

Sign up to Morning Brew for free today at bit.ly/mbcaspianreport2

[@shivanshverma2825]

First

[@Icenri]

Hi, Mr. Shivan, could you do a video on the basic rules of geopolitics? One that would explain terms like heartland and underbelly or how the elites are usually in the coast and are liberal while the people from the interior tend to be more conservative.

[@112deeps]

Problem with Communism is when you have not much you can only share not much ; & when you have nothing you can only share nothing....!

[@angamaitesangahyando685]

@@112deeps The problem with Communism is that it is a European meme. The word is translated in Korea and China and means something else. A similar case is with "nationalism" - where Korean and Chinese "nationalists" sold their own women to American occupiers. - Adûnâi

[@kashmirha]

Russia has the same problem, just as a mirror image...

[@gxlorp]

It's kind of crazy the entire earth is like a centuries long real time strategy game where we are alive for a few turns.

[@infochase6656]

Lol.

[@perspective500]

Its almost as if it's the other way round and rts was inspired by civilizational narratives 😁

[@Random13Guy]

And it's kind of shocking that we'll be able to create a human-like centuries long real time strategy simulations (games) in just a few years from now.

[@xHomu]

Just one more turn...

[@danielwatson7713]

@@xHomu lol

[@kimsoon6927]

The most stressful part of writing a caspian episode must be figuring out the smart one liner in the end..

[@segmentsAndCurves]

It's the thing that makes his videos gold. Also memes. Many of them.

[@balkanmontero]

He keeps delivering great one liners too

[@ahkee369]

This episode should be easy. Just take from the Commie Chinese Party propaganda.

[@anneeq008]

Yh he failed with this one though

[@johnnzboy]

@@anneeq008 You think? "It's always darkest before it's totally black."? I thought that was a nice subversion of expectation and it made me chuckle. Not a classic, perhaps, but not a failure.

[@brownbricks6017]

I think it's worth pointing out that, historically, the Chinese heartland is not the coast, but the North China Plain.

[@indeterminate4794]

The CCPs heartland was in the north, but the economic heartland of China was in the coasts.

[@majormononoke8958]

True, but i think he was taking more about the wealth and "heartland" of today, which would be around the coast like he pointed out.

[@geoffreycharles6330]

Is the North Chinese plain the region we call Manchuria around Port Arthur or the one around Shanghai?

[@dannyrussell7333]

@@geoffreycharles6330 Neither, they're talking about the Yellow River basin.

[@geoffreycharles6330]

@@dannyrussell7333 whichis that near to? Isn't it Shanghai?

[@CKBmay10]

I like your analysis of why the coastal provinces need the interior. Another one: controlling Tibet is controlling water, where Yangtze and Yellow rivers starts, and Indus, Mekong, etc… that’s also crucial and power

[@WALKUREX]

His analysis is dumb since China isn't a communist state, its an authoritarian state

[@k.umquat8604]

@@WALKUREX It's more complicated than that. China is still, de jure, a communist state, and so it has a number of "obligations"

[@roguegenesis7020]

@@WALKUREX his analysis is batshut but the basics are true, China does present itself as a communist state everywhere, to its citizens, it's organisations are function similar to communist ones as hypocritical as it sounds A top pro government intellectual in China calls this the secular mandate of heaven, it gives a certain legitimacy to china in not just homeland but to also leftists in other countries that it's strategically advantageous

[@Devilishlybenevolent]

@@roguegenesis7020 Yeah and we in America call ourselves a democratic country, but in reality we're an oligarchy where both rep/dems work for the corporations.

[@twally87]

@@Devilishlybenevolent 100% completely unrelated to CKBmay10's comment...

[@bangscutter]

He who controls Tibet, controls the water source that feeds the two most populous nations on earth. Hence, Tibet is very important to both China and India.

[@rozariomesiti2774]

Jade Empire flashback

[@jingchengyang8957]

@pal Since Qing Dynasty, India didn't even exist by then.

[@CannibaLouiST]

@@YizhouRong Do not interpret medieval empires' way of ruling as the same as modern nation states. They ain't. And being a tributary state is not the same as being a Chinese territory.

[@张楗萍]

@pal learn history 💩if Tibet wasn’t part of China,north America isn’t belong to white!

[@张楗萍]

@@YizhouRong Tibet is part of China from yuan dynasty

[@KishoreMathers]

"no political system can operate eternally" san marino: are you challenging me?

[@cpt.honklerof3rdkekistania400]

Thank you for this i never knew about it.

[@jasonalex7640]

@@cpt.honklerof3rdkekistania400 is kekistan a right wing political country ?

[@kimmogensen4888]

61.2 km2 and Population 33,600. it must take 10 minutes to drive through the city or I mean the country. But very cool italy has not just annexed the city, and let them be themselves.

[@АлеевИлья-ы7ы]

Mixed system vs. U.S.

[@the-quintessenz]

Even Napoleon and Mussolini left it alone.

[@prussiangreen6940]

People should note that topographically speaking, China isn't one flat mass of land. Much like the US, coastal states are evidently richer (California, New York, etc.). Central China is topographically a basin and more prone to flooding. Western China is elevated, hence it is difficult to connect it to the coastal cities. North-Western China is surrounded by deserts and frequented by sandstorms.

[@gxlorp]

Aye, best keep away from tusken raiders

[@YanPagh]

China could be way better if they just let their people thrive by their own volition.

[@DieFlabbergast]

Western China is ALWAYS going to be (and always has been) relatively poor. For topographic and climatic reasons, the population per square kilometre is very low.

[@bananawitchcraft]

Geography shapes history, the environment shapes its inhabitants, just like a container shapes whatever liquid you pour into it.

[@sleepyjoe4529]

@@YanPagh that's for them to decide, not you

[@ezhar4690]

You have forgot to mention how the inner areas are helping the economy of coastal areas by providing them with much needed raw materials to develop their economies in the first place

[@oh753]

I'm surprised he did not mention that and instead chose to say they are "buffers".

[@chrismcaulay7805]

Thank God there is another person with a brain in the comments... China's real powers comes from its raw materials, if not for the raw materials there would be no reason to keep these "buffers" because war is very different now than when the Mongols where marauding around...

[@Mr.Nichan]

The regional wealth disparity really helps me understand China. EDIT: The key word is "regional". Also, people seem to read things into this comment that aren't there.

[@michael3032]

Eh its natural that the areas nearer to the coast are richer than the much farther inland areas. But things have been improving all around, and the Chinese government have been putting in effort in poverty alleviation (absolute poverty has been eradicated in 2020)

[@lk8300]

Hunger games

[@drscopeify]

This is a bullshit argument because rural areas of the USA are much poorer than the coast or rich cities but the USA does not need communisim to run the country. All countries in the world have poor areas or rural areas so this argument is nonsense.

[@DerPlusquamperfekt]

@@drscopeify The USA doesn't have large native ethnicities. There is no threat of Iroquois secession.

[@timmulder6362]

I mean in the red area's live only around 10% of the Total population so it looks way worse than it actually is.

[@wazzupdj98d61]

Very impressed by this episode. I've noticed that a lot of those studying geopolitics focus too much on geography, without examining the equally important political aspects. This episode not only manages to do both, but also demonstrates how the political and the geographic are very much complimentary in policymaking. Bravo.

[@AB8511]

On the contrary I am thoroughly disappointed by this one - because IMHO it is non-sense. In every regime (even in democratic one, perhaps even more so) richer regions are subsidizing the poorer one. You do not need communism for that. Answer is much simpler - Communist party cant not abandon communism, because they want to stay at power so they can not admit, that this ideology does not work in practice. And when you maintain your power by power, losing power can quite easily mean death or loss of personal freedom.

[@kingenimatix7013]

Should further specify that the political areas are not just external aspects like diplomacy and intl. relations, but also internal like demographics and socio-cultural aspects. Alot of people forget how actually ethnically diverse modern China is (Han, Hui, Zhuang, Manchu, Uyghur, Tibetan, Mongolian just to name a few). But anyways, otherwise you are right.

[@visheshrao5629]

@@AB8511 I agree that you don't need commumism to help subsidise the poorer regions in your geography, even a centralised government with utmost power to make and implement policies, elected by the people themselves, can do it, until and unless you're a 3000 year old civilisation acting as a state. If you read Chinese history, you'll see the phases of contraction and expansion that Shirvan is talking about here. I'd suggest watching videos of Whatifalthist or Kraut, regarding this. As for the CCP is concerned, simpler answers often are a shell of better ones, it's not as simple as you think it is.

[@enternalinferno]

Completely disagree, this is one of Shirvan's worst videos, for reasons others have said I noticed. So many unexplained baseless claims, maybe the worst ones is insinuating that there is an actually spread of wealth from the east to the west, and the second one that coastal China would be democratic and liberal. What? How?

[@enternalinferno]

@@kingenimatix7013 Jupp, it's called imperialism by the Han

[@avishalom2000lm]

"It's always darkest before it's completely black." Not as cheery and upbeat as the usual saying goes, but it's much closer to reality.

[@abberss]

I think something got lost in translation with that one. It doesn't make any sense.

[@juliantheapostate8295]

@@abberss It's a retort to the saying 'It's always darkest before the dawn'

[@rajanikantsingh4429]

It doesn't because it's really not what happens. A candle gives last high light before blackout. Saying this discount the reality, sometimes people say this to sound pessimistic poetic. But, really doesn't make sense.

[@Exquisite_Poupon]

@「 Deadpoppin 」 Then explain it.

[@Willys-Wagon]

I think you might have meant dawn, unless I have completely missed your point.

[@LotharTheFellhanded]

I don’t know if this reflects the CCP thinking, but on he idea of the interior as the shield for China; the era of anyone launching a major land invasion through Western China is pretty much past. Especially against a nuclear power. Whether they worry about that, I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem a reasonable worry. The real reason China doesn’t abandon its pretense at communism (I do not consider them communist anymore) is because the communist revolutionary struggle is the founding myth of the CCP. To abandon it would lose their legitimacy and call into question why there is one party rule if that party has no real ideology to justify itself. China is purely authoritarian now. It is an empire again, just like Russia, just one that clothes itself in the tawdry red banners of communism instead of that of ancient feudal warlords like the imperial government did. Their ideology is wealth and power and a fervent nationalism, fueled by grudges from the century of humiliation. They have no utopian socialist ideals, their goal is only to hold onto power and wealth for themselves and do anything required to stamp out any ember of revolutionary ideas, be they socialist, ethnic, nationalist, religious, etc. America and Europe’s liberal democracies have curdled into neoliberal oligarchy, and China’s Maoist revolutionaries have given way to this naked authoritarianism and also oligarchy. It’s oligarchs the world over. The future is dominated by mega corporations that the west isn’t going to restrain. China is going to try but its probably not going to work. Striking down Jack Ma was a surprise but Chinese corporations are only going to grow and they can insert all the commissars they want onto every board, but in the end, those commissars will want the good life they see around them, so they’ll switch sides.

[@ex0duzz]

China needs to worry about India from the west, terrorists from Afghanistan, and of course Russia from north and north west. Relations might be good now, but China thinks long term. In hundred or few hundred years, all that water in Tibet will pay off and will need to be defended from everyone. India has always tried to influence and claim Tibet and parts of western China. In case you forgot, 20 Indian and 4 Chinese soldiers just died not long ago in border clash, and there was invasion by India in 62 and in 70s, with periodic Clashes still. Himalayas is the moat defending china.. And china would be dumb to let India cross the moat uncontested and mass up on the other side to prepare for invasion of Tibet. India would get smoked either way, but using the natural moat is a no brainer.

[@ziqianzijun228]

@@bharathamempire6613 印度是历史上存在的国家吗？他只是英国殖民地聚合管理的产物，然后不尊重历史就成了你们的领土？搞笑

[@naiyayika]

@@ziqianzijun228 Bots 🤷

[@karlnord1429]

@LotharTheFellhanded Amazing post dude Tyvm

[@kevinguyclifton]

Exactly this is the first correct comment.

[@kevinwilliams3694]

It's always darkest before it's totally black. What a way to sign off. With the current power cuts it's pretty literal too.

[@Bigdeathy]

"The darkest time is just before the dawn."

[@АлеевИлья-ы7ы]

@@Bigdeathy, , or maybe the other way around?! The era of U.S. occupation of the world is coming to an end. The United States from the point of view of Russia is the Empire of True Evil

[@蒙古船舶重工]

As a poor English speaker, I find it difficult to understand this one, is anyone kind enough to explain that? Thanks a lot🙏 🙏

[@_0______00__________0_______0]

@@蒙古船舶重工 To be honest it's a bit of a weird line. The original expression is "it's always darkest before the dawn", meaning that times often get harder before they get easier. Here, Shirvan changes it to imply things may be getting worse, and will continue in that direction. The changed line for many English speakers is awkward though, "things are darkest before they are totally black", since total blackness would be the darkest things could get. I think he's trying to say something like "things are at their worst before they get even worse"? I'm unsure myself.

[@蒙古船舶重工]

@@_0______00__________0_______0 My understanding is that as an ideology, Shirvan doesn't hold an optimistic attitude about China‘s communism future. But considering the history and geopolitical environment of China, there's no better way to stay unified and maintain the economic growth. So I think he means"things are bad, but at least they are not the worst case(total blackness)"? Just an idea

[@silvermane5695]

"Manufactured stability but stability nonetheless" - a statement that resonates loud these days among the rich nations.

[@maddoo23]

"Manufactured stability but stability nonetheless", as opposed to what? "Natural Stability"?

[@wulaboombeach5004]

So much arrogance and naivety in that sentence

[@fmlutube]

Catchy but I don't see what is deep about that sentence. Is stability supposed to be a natural, spontaneous event? Every economic and sociopolitical stability is manufactured, no exception. It is like saying wet liquid water. Anyway, excellent video otherwise. I think he should have gone with "autonomous prosperity" (for the poorer regions) or something like that.

[@jirislavicek9954]

@@maddoo23 Both Russia and China are vast countries comprised of many small nations and ethnic groups and both are highly centralized. Without a strong leadership and "manufactured stability" those countries would run a serious risk of quickly disintegrating or slipping into civil war . It's not the US with its democratic constitution and electoral college and national cohesion. China is getting better in this regard, there is a party in charge, but Russia is a one man show.

[@geordiejones5618]

@@maddoo23 natural stability is very rare. Most governments have kept together because of a shared lie (ususally some sort of nationalism whether active or passive). And you cant argue with the results.

[@user-pl7ed6ci6l]

Good video, but there are some disinformation in its conent, China has long been an empire before there was even communism, having a strong central government that distribute resources along the different provinces doesn't equal to communism, the Chinese empire had its ups and downs, through the dynasties, rulers came and gone, but they all tried to unify China under a strong centralized government, they have been ruling that way long before communism even existed. The other fact that I want to point out is that historically, it was not always the coastal region that were the wealthiest, coastal region around the world became wealthy with the rise of sea power, mostly because international trades started using sea lanes instead of land routes. China is a land power, in a long span of its history, it was cities along its silk road that were the wealthiest, China's one belt one road is trying to recreate the silk road.

[@RobinNandi]

Excellent comment.

[@hotcakesism]

Yeah the definition of communism given at the start of the video is pretty bad, sort of lost interest in the rest of it after that, sorry no offense to any fans here

[@philv2529]

Silk road was the mainform of trade until the fall of Constantinople

[@raptorhacker599]

@@hotcakesism yeah man this video is stupid lmao. wealth distribution has been a thing long before the plague of communism surfaced.

Everybody knows China is not communist

[@Kongajinken]

Europe also has extensive social programs. Communism doesn't have a monopoly on social programs.

[@НикитаЛяхов-х9н]

But communism is based on social programs it is the main goal. Capitalisms main goal - to earn the money, not social programs. Moreover Capitalism stole these programs. if we hadnt have communists, we wouldnt have such wide social programs.

[@durianjaykin3576]

You gotta thank those socialists in europe for fighting for these socialists programs

[@firstnamelastname7003]

@@durianjaykin3576 ^this. If it was up to the neoliberals there wouldn't be any programs and capitalist would eat itself.

[@VigilantGuardian6750]

@@durianjaykin3576 No, Otto von Bismarck pushed it into mainstream in europe some 140years ago, not socialists so root of those programs isnt socialism but a non socialist reformator, educate yourself.

[@herbertherbertic6223]

Europe is a communist hellhole to an extent.

[@SeanSafford]

This disparity between rich coastal regions and relatively impoverished interiors isn’t exactly unique: the US and EU each have found ways to subsidize their poorer regions without authoritarian centralized states. Wealth transfer and development aren’t all that mysterious. The difference is that China hasn’t developed much of a welfare state. Why not?

[@michael3032]

Because its still a developing country. Even then it has cheaper medical care than say the US (although not a good beacon for welfare) and comparable to say Canada though. Also cheap living costs.

[@Tsuchimursu]

I would say it might be possible, but highly challenging to start going for that from where they stand. The safest bet for them is to stick with what has been working well enough so far.

[@MA-go7ee]

Also it is not 'communism'. China has already abandoned that since the 70s.

[@Tsuchimursu]

@@MA-go7ee if you want to go purist, communism has never been achieved in earth. People will always be people.

[@jackyex]

I think the point is how large the wealth gap is, some provinces have the standard of the first world, others have an standard of Sub-Saharan African nations, not even the poorest American state get as close of a difference of wealth.

[@r3dpowel796]

Sudan is GDP= 26 Billion$ Xinjiang gdp = 116 billion $.

[@kavenxiong5521]

As you can see, they are equivalent

[@theylaughatmynickname4860]

Means this caspian report made a mistake. Intentional or not, is up to him to explain

[@suitingding8352]

Well, actually Xinjiang‘s GDP is more than 200 billion dollars in 2020.

[@backpackpepelon3867]

@@suitingding8352 that explain why last year, US try to start revolution in Xinjiang, but failed terribly because China already wiped those mosques used to train insurgents, and build good relationship with Taliban's to reduce the fractions between the Muslims in the north.

[@dying_allthetime]

@@backpackpepelon3867 so you admit China is committing cultural genocide

[@Bronxguyanese]

China has similar issues just like Russia. Both China and Russia are very similar when it comes to geopolitics.

[@archer_wsk1408]

Algeria too

[@gabbar51ngh]

USSR fell & disintegrated. CCP will too.

[@jellybeanjuggler7474]

@Robert Valentin America has survived it's fair share of bad leaders...we always bounce back.

[@ArchesBro]

@@jellybeanjuggler7474 Its not the leaders of the US political parties, its the media that encourages riots and gaslights the crazies as well as promoting drug culture. Many of the riots in 2020 were predicated on false premises, like George Floyd who was overdosing on fentanyl that was laced onto meth and triggered by the police interaction. Or in Kenosha where a guy suspected of raping his ex broke free from police trying to arrest him and attempted to grab a knife and was shot in the back 6 times. The George Floyd death was tragic and the officer still seems to be largely at fault for ruthlessly pinning him, but people were encouraged to riot, and that is not right

[@Cryptospirosis]

@@jellybeanjuggler7474 do you think so? US have no economic counterpart ever since. I don't think they can counter China this time

[@StephenYuan]

You can view China's undeveloped interior as a problem (which it is) but also as an opportunity. It means that the Chinese economy as a whole is still nowhere close to full employment. The Prc can probably sustain high single digit GDP growth for the foreseeable future. All you need is to build the infrastructure to make the capital and resources of the coasts available to the interior and the regional disparities should equalize somewhat.

[@wyattlines7228]

Which they do. They spend billions on rail, infrastructure. Say what you will about China, but they invest in their people, unlike the neo-liberal west who abandon the people to line the pockets of the rich. China is making the lives of its citizens better, while the youth of the west face a future of unstable employment, stagnant wages and never owning a home.

[@SQ8MXT]

@@wyattlines7228 At least it is possible to own a home. And move wherever you want. And being free to speak. Or protest....

[@mm764]

@@SQ8MXT sounds like Africa? Better life quality if the goal

[@chrismcaulay7805]

Not really. They are producing things as fast as they can get the natural resources together to do so. Many of those resources can be mined domestically, but China is a net importer of most materials already. China is near capped out in their current manufacturing based econ. The next 2-3 decades will decided if they crash due to higher pricing moving more and more manufacturing elsewhere before or after they can achieve a service based economy... My guess is they crash...

[@josephruiz7233]

They don't have the natural resource quantities for what your thinking.

[@blackpowderuser373]

Chinese Communism = Hammers-and-SicklesTM item sale for 1,949 RMB

[@54788654478087654345]

Speaking of truth in a joke, I wonder how much of the Chinese system is better characterized as authoritarian versus communist? In this argument, communism is the vehicle for authoritarianism and not authoritarianism the vehicle for communism.

[@blackpowderuser373]

@@54788654478087654345 We can say that Chinese Communism was born out of the unique circumstances China found itself. Since China wasn't fully industrialized, Mao Zedong had to revise communist ideals to a more agrarian socialist approach. This stands in contrast to the more orthodox, Soviet-style communism preferred by the likes of Wang Ming or the Left Wing of the Kuomintang. So yes, I think Mao did change China to a more communist society (with agrarian emphasis), but still carried on the authoritarian streak ever since. Even with Deng Xiaoping's market reforms.

[@heinrichhimmler3781]

@@blackpowderuser373 Mao Zedong Perspective Is Perfect But His Steps And Actions Are Worse In Chinese History .He Became a evil Himself. Deng xioping is an hero for chinese people. He is the father of modern china .

[@blackpowderuser373]

@@heinrichhimmler3781 Yes, I believe that too. Mao Zedong, while in his mind trying to make China more "conducive" for communism, ended up being much more tyrannical and evil. What was he expecting, the Chinese could catch up on steel production that quickly with makeshift steel from communes? Deng Xiaoping also had his skeletons in the closet (cough Tiananmen Square 1989 cough) but he was relatively more reasonable to deal with. I think of all Paramount Leaders, Hu Jintao seems to be the relatively tamest of them. But Xi Jinping seems hellbent on Chinese nationalism at all costs nowadays.

[@blackpowderuser373]

@@heinrichhimmler3781 I doubt he would leave however. He has consolidated enough since Mao Zedong.

[@redcorruption4561]

No one can just abandon and change everything in their policies

[@roberthoward9500]

Mussolini did.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

@Red Corruption May I ask you what the color of your profile picture stand for?

[@redcorruption4561]

@@LibertarianLeninistRants Don't get too excited commie lmao I just like the color red, same with purple.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

@@redcorruption4561 Ah ok. I was asking because the color combination red and purple are a proposed color change for my party (currently we are only red for socialism, but we have enshrined feminist values too so purple would be the perfect complementary).

[@vontai4553]

@@redcorruption4561 😭😭😭

[@benjaminrussellchen]

May I simply comment that your pronunciation of foreign languages is excellent and so much better than other creators on KZbin. Thanks for your effort!

[@niklas5948]

His pronounciation of Zhejiang and Guangdong impressed me

[@mattygaga2013]

Except 서울 Seoul, he pronounced it as "See-owl" when it's "Soh-ool" lol but other than this, he did fantastic and it really impressed me too!

[@Numba003]

I've been on a kick learning about Chinese history and government lately, and I very much appreciate this socioeconomic and geopolitical perspective on modern China. Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you friends! :)

[@looinrims]

You should, it won’t be long until a letter comes in the mail for your conscription to put the Chinese government in the dirt

[@looinrims]

@@Xinyouting oh no another ‘the internet doesn’t count!’ Ok boomer

[@skylarkesselring6075]

@@looinrims that letter is going straight in the trash

[@looinrims]

@@skylarkesselring6075 the us government isn’t asking

[@kieran8921]

I would not go that far into geographical determinism as many democratic states also redistribute wealth through heavy subsidies from their densely populated, often but not always, coastal regions to sparsely populated interior regions for a variety of reasons but the most notable is stability. This can happen through agricultural subsidies in the US, the UK has the Barnet formula and the EU has net contributors and net receivers. Changed it from mostly happens to can happen, in response to the reply below.

[@wnxdafriz]

>> i'll be honest most non large corporate farms do not see subsidies unless there is a drought... its more or less extra the government provides extra insurance... now subsidies for say highways etc... that makes more sense but the highway system also helps support trade

[@kieran8921]

@@wnxdafriz I would agree most small independently owned farms are not doing too well right now but farming is just a part of a larger picture where at least in the US interior states receive more federal money than they put in compared to the coastal ones which is vice versa.

[@firstnamelastname7003]

Regional wealth disparities in the US got Trump elected, in the EU they led to crippling and very unpopular austerity in places like Greece, and in the UK they may lead to the break up of the Union. So Caspian may have a point.

[@kieran8921]

@@firstnamelastname7003I would point out that the UK has yet to break up, the US did not re-elect Trump and the EU has never been on the most stable of grounds. My main point was rather more along the line of even leaders of democratic nations, no matter which party they come from, recognise the need for redistributive measures to maintain national unity and that we should not use geography too much to predispose a certain area to a particular form of governance. I agree that it can serve as a probabilistic factor but certainly not the main one.

[@obsidianstatue]

Very poor comparison with EU or the US. 1) The US has vast and sparsely populated farmland in the Midwest, they don't need much subsidy, their huge commercial farms are profitable enough, one of the many perks in exterminating the Natives Americans. 2) The EU is less than HALF the size of China, with no where near as complex geography. the most landlocked country in the EU like the Czech republic is only 400km or so away from the coast. China on the other has terrains so inaccessible that it must have a centralized system to build basic infrastructure. A more apt comparison would be India, where large part of the Indian population lives away from the coast in the unnavigable Ganges river plains, making it effectively landlocked. And India is FAR poorer and far less developed in comparison, and guess what system does India have.

[@Etzellll]

Communism, and Authoritarianism was used quite interchangeably in this video, even if they dont really mean the same thing. I think its safe to say, that China is a capitalist state, with an authoritarian government. Said government wants to control, or guide the economy, thats why the heavy handed measures. But calling a country with the most billionaires on Earth communist, is a bit strange.....

[@barmybarmecide5390]

Communism doesn't have a static definition, not anymore than Christianity or Islam. The CCP, FARC and Glasgow Communist Youth are all incredibly different from each other, but they all call themselves communist and genuinely believe that

[@stooge_mobile]

That's because political power leads to economic power in China. Apart from the recent tech billionaires, the government controls who wins and loses in the economy. It's a hybrid communist and capitalist system. But politically, the economy is very much driven by the "Communist party of China"

[@castor3020]

The government still has the last say on anything relating to economics, it might not be actual communism, more of an evolution of it. "Communism with Chinese characteristics" if you will. In their eyes the "people" is in control of the means of production, just through proxies. No company stays alive in China without the party allowing it to be so, not to mention that they are subordinated to the party to do it's will if need be. Concepts evolve with time, and we should evolve the definitions (or invent new ones) with them.

[@miliba]

Its state capitalism, totalitarianism and communist symbology

[@ganweidi1382]

When government controls the capitalist, adversaries would label the government as authoratarian. When the capitalist control the government, adversaries would label the government as corrupted.

[@yunchenwang4075]

His pronunciation of Chinese province names is really good. Must be from a mandarin speaker.

[@freemanol]

Can't agree more. A sign of a serious learner. Lots of respect

[@Grityom]

I don't know if he is a mandarin speaker, but he genuinely put a lot of efforts pronouncing foreign names

[@freemanol]

@@Grityom i think yunchen meant he learnt it from a mandarin speaker

[@teemuvesala9575]

He's not native mandarin speaker.

[@Grityom]

@@freemanol Oh alright, I misunderstood that. That's very probable, pinyin is really not intuitive to non-Chinese

[@gravewalker34]

China isn't communist since forever. Its a capitalistic society but much more controlled than other countries. I used to think how china became rich with communism but it wasn't communism but capitalism that made it what it is. Its just a closed society for reasons.

[@tonyv3758]

Wish this video posted its sources. Would love to do some further reading on this topic

[@benjaminchen8857]

One of his patreon perks includes sources

[@enternalinferno]

Me too, because these conclusions seem totally baseless for me. Where on earth does he get the idea that coastal China would be democratic and liberal from? Also, there is no dispersion of wealth towards the poorer provinces, that's why they're poor! They're being exploited and repressed, genocide isn't an unfitting word

[@adonissherlock]

The source is the MIIT, probably

[@ibnu9969]

@@enternalinferno if you look into imperial Chinese history, the recurring theme is pretty much "protecting the heartland", that is, the most strategic area, which is currently the North China Plains and areas along the coast. That is where most of China's wealth and population are. That makes any income that they will spend naturally will be prioritized towards those areas first. So the disparity on the distribution of wealth between its provinces is mostly because there are simply too much to maintain in the eastern China compared to its western frontiers

[@Joso997]

@@enternalinferno well all of the surveillance equipment in Xinjiang costs money "wealth distribution"

[@harrybuttery2447]

A few things wrong with this. Nations can easily subsidize poor regions, it does not take a communist state to do so(look at the US, Russia, Australia, Canada etc). But also the Chinese face no threat from the interior, Tibet maybe as it borders India but the west borders nobody who is a threat at all and is so vast and inhospitable that an invasion through that area would be difficult. The only threat to the west would be Russia and Russia would find it much easier to go through Manchuria to Beijing than through the interior.

[@freemanol]

I know 2 countries very well that are counter examples to this. I have russian friends from siberia, and their cities are in an absolutely horrendous state, compared to the soviet times. Because in the soviet union, these cities no matter how remote are given basic services, while in capitalist russia, cities that produce less tax than upkeep are simply left to rot. In the UK, i lived north and south, and the difference is massive. In the north crime is high, streets unclean, public services dysfunctional. These regions don't produce much in taxes and so get a lot less funding. Talk to any brit and find out for yourself

[@harrybuttery2447]

@@freemanol The difference between the two is still far less than in China which is my point. Yes sure, Britain does have bad areas, all nations do, but they still have access to welfare and can still live a life that while it may be mediocre to western standards, is still to western standards, they are not third world slaves completely lacking in infrastructure or any other modernity.

[@freemanol]

@@harrybuttery2447 in russia i would say that it resembles africa in some places. Just try StreetView in the outskirts of Yakutsk, in or really anywhere in siberia. In the UK, there is still deep deep poverty. I'm talking about child poverty even, where kids rely on their school meals for food, and go hungry during the school holidays. But i think the US is still probably worse when it comes to poverty. And there's a lingering image of abject poverty in china, which has changed a lot in the last decade or so. No doubt there are still impoverished communities in the villages. But the fact is that living conditions and salary have improved so much that manufacturers are finding it hard to maintain their low cost labour, and they are now looking to africa to take it on instead. I don't think the ideology determines whether system can run effectively. Singapore is very authoritarian yet it functions. Japan is democratic and it functions too. Korea is democratic and it still has a struggling lower class. I don't think people should discredit China's progress solely down to their ideology

[@harrybuttery2447]

@@freemanol It can be pretty bad but it is still a functioning comparative to what they have in the east, it's run down and not a nice place to live but it still has everything that one would need, it has shops, electricity, running water, roads etc. The same goes for the UK and US but it's much better for them, no matter how bad it looks to us compared to our standards, they are still akin to these standards in the first place, they still have all the things we have in the better parts they are just run down and not as good. But they are there. It's true, China has lifted many out of poverty but it has been lopsided leaving many behind and those that have been lift behind have not been subsided to any meaningful degree by the government, efforts have been made but they are not great enough. It's true that the wage has gone up but again, it's lopsided. There are many that live in the interior that do work in the city but that has issues of it's own being that because of the way they run things there they are essentially immigrants in their own country with no rights to welfare or healthcare and being forced to have the worst and most poorly paying jobs. That will be changed one would assume, it has to be. China is going to have to tap all the labour they can get and that will mean relaxing the system so that these immigrant workers can get into the proper work force. Provided China does not collapse before then(I'm nowhere near as optimistic on China as his sponsor seems to be). I agree, it has nothing to do with the ideology, which was my point. It's simply a matter of where and how the government decides to spend it's money which is based on factors completely separate to ideology in 99% of cases.

[@freemanol]

@@harrybuttery2447 i agree with the lack of redistribution in china so far, there are hundreds of millions of people left out of the prosperity growth. but i think the infrastructure projects in these impoverished and remote regions are significant investments, and infrastructure allows for economic growth for a sustainable improvement to living standards. it is harder to see similar investments being done at that pace in other democratic countries with a lot more scrutiny over the locations and budgets of such projects. and on the threat from the interior, i think it's mistaken to see no threat bar from russia. an independent tibet or xinjiang would allow a foreign rival to set up their military there and be able to strike china proper without encountering natural obstacles.

[@mabo9636]

I don't think China belongs to classic communism. A neo-revisionism or state-capitalism instead.

[@yaldabaoth2]

China is nationalistic and socialistic. Put those words together and you have the closest comparison in history.

[@EatMyShortsAU]

True, I think it communist only in name. Shanghai is basically Chinese New York.

[@arrowsarikoski9740]

There's no such thing as state capitalism. That's an oxymoronic term. Capitalism is private ownership, while socialism is state ownership. State capitalism means state nonstate.

[@ristekostadinov2820]

@@yaldabaoth2 socialism doesn't mean that they don't support nationalism. I live in former Yugoslavian state, and in all of the former states there are around 20% of the population who are nationalists and probably another 10% who are walking on thin line between patriotism and nationalism even tho many people speak positively about the days of socialism.

[@Voleyballll]

@@arrowsarikoski9740 Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. State capitalism can exist if the government doesn't sufficiently represent the people, and private capitalists are replaced by state bureucrats. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, which doesnt necessarily require the state (co-ops, free associations etc.). However much China calls itself communist, since the workers have no say in the running of the enterprises they work in, they live in a fundamentally capitalist economy. Also since Deng the CCP has guided more than owned private enterprises and they dominate the economy currently (around 60% of GDP).

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

This is the kind of analysis that a capitalist, western minded analyst can do. Yet, it is seriously wrong. It is making assumptions that demonstrate how it is difficult to understand the Chinese mindset and Chinese policy. China has never been capitalistic, nor they want to be. It has never been liberal democratic, and it will never be. Geography is important but it is unrelated to the video subject.

[@alexvig2369]

"It's always darkest, before it's totally black" I love those shocking yet so realistic quotes Shirvan makes.

[@selohcin]

It's all style and no substance this time around. That perspective is what the Communist leaders in Beijing WANT you to think. It has no basis in reality.

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

Totally dark is the darkest so you can’t be darkest before darkest. Understand?

[@alexvig2369]

@@selohcin Not true. If you'd ever read Chinese media outlets you would've known that they don't talk in terms like that about themselves at all. It is clear to everyone that China has peaked and it won't grow any bigger nor stronger from here.

[@manofsan]

​ @Alex Vig - you may be right - but it seems that China's leaders reached this conclusion only after first groping through various other options by trial and error. When Trump arrived, he put China on notice that its unconstrained trade imbalances were unsustainable and would not be allowed to continue. He immediately matched his rhetoric with efforts in shifting global supply chains away from China. Beijing in turn quickly announced its new Belt & Road Initiative, which involved copious investments in deadbeat countries with dubious creditworthiness that other lenders stayed away from. As the liabilities of this route likewise began exposing themselves, Beijing's leadership is now finally falling back on return to authoritarianism in the name of communism. Suddenly we see crackdowns on social media & tech companies, and now even looming bankruptcies of colossal scale. Even if Beijing leaders can ride out such titanic shockwaves, what of China's fawning admirers in the West who've invested their financial futures in the China bubble? Will they be jumping out of windows when their investments are swallowed up?

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@manofsan The Belt & Road Initiative precedes Trump, who achieved next to nothing apart from pissing off his own allies. He certainly didn't constrain China. 'Shifting global supply chains away from China' lol! What world are you living in?

[@sulandelemere]

I think there is a misreading of history here. China largely grew due to outside invasion and “foreign” rule. Furthermore, in the 19th and 20th century it is the coastal areas that were vulnerable to Western invasion. To say China isn’t living up to its potential under its current system and it would do better under something else is dubious considering the unprecedented growth and technological advancements China has achieved. There are populous liberal democracies on China’s periphery that are doing rather worse, Indonesia, India, and the Philippines are three notable ones.

[@freemanol]

Anyone who knows any of those countries you mentioned would know democracy can't always produce results under all circumstances. Countries like indonesia only have growth on paper, the rich 0.1% who gets richer and richer, owning islands and jets. Corruption and cronyism is rife because the people kept electing bad but sweet talking figures, especially religious figures. Look at the living conditions of the average indian. And then look at the chinese who have evolved massively. Believe me i used to hate of mainland chinese too. But i stand corrected

[@selohcin]

Yet somehow, Japan and South Korea are both doing better. I wonder why?

[@freemanol]

@@selohcin singapore has less democracy and higher GDP per capita than those countries. The reality isn't a straight line

[@guydreamr]

@@selohcin Not to mention Taiwan.

[@Heundeullim]

@@selohcin South Korea is a vassal state of the US and Japan has three times the national debt compared to their national wealth, not to mention their societies are rapidly aging and Japan's economic growth has been around 1.5% yearly for a long time now.

[@Christian_Sannino]

China never was a communist country, in fact it's why China is so strong today

[@raplopez4258]

Hi Shirvan. You need to offer better-looking shirts, personally they are pretty uncreative and unappealing but I got one because I like you. *Please like this so he sees it*

[@dm9078]

A polo with the logo embroidered on the left breast would be fly!

[@gxlorp]

I love Shirvan

[@bobshen7425]

Excuse me, Xinjiang in fact have a GDP nearly 10 times that of Sudan(200billion vs 25billion USD), with about half the population(25 vs 45 million). I understand you are emphasizing how poor it is, but this might be a bit misleading. In this rate China’s GDP per capita is comparable to Luxembourg lol.

[@Fauzanarief-n7i]

yeah, i think it will be more fair if he compare with GDP per capita rather than only GDP

[@manayakakanataka5256]

you are wrong if you take GDP adjusted of cost of living in Sudan it the same as xinjiang (250billion) source world bank. Sudan has devalued his money by 2 third these recently so he is right.

[@kingenimatix7013]

GDP per capita?

[@terencekwong3033]

Good point and it's also misleading not showing their GDP growth per province. Percentage wise, places like XJ, Tibet and Inner Mongolia show higher growth compared to the more established coastal regions. But if he included that, he wouldn't have a point to make.

[@dallascopp4798]

China has been found to lie about their economic numbers and go through extra effort to make their interior territories look better than they actually are. In-fact recently it was discovered they lied about their data to the World Bank to make themselves look better. Any numbers about the GDP from Xinjiang or Tibet are most likely highly inflated so the costal elites can keep up their image for the sake of propaganda.

[@Low_commotion]

CIxin Liu (the author of the "Three-Body Problem" series), once made a comment to this effect in New Yorker profile on him, stating that the transition from communism to liberal democracy in China would be hell on Earth. Sounded extreme to me at the time, but after watching this I understand what he means now (regardless of what I think of "communism with Chinese characteristics").

[@durianjaykin3576]

Man, the interior states of China would demand leftist programs while the coastline states would demand more free market capitalism. Country will be in a deadlock

[@lakeblackBLM]

@@durianjaykin3576 COMMUNISM WILL PREVAIL

[@CannibaLouiST]

@@lakeblackBLM 紅毛夷

[@文黄-s1u]

The result of all-round democracy in China is that you don't know how many “Trump” will be elected and how ambitious they are.

[@CannibaLouiST]

@@文黄-s1u That's the consequence of nationalism. Democracy or not doesn't matter.

[@klogechris]

You can't really call China a communist country, it is a very unique blend of authoritarianism and heavily state controlled capitalism, but certainly not comnunism like the soviet union, or what is even proprosed by Karl Marx. Moreover, subsidizing the poorer parts of the country is not unique to China, every large country does this. Note that I am not advocating the Chinese economic or state model, but let's at least have an honest discussion about China, rather than just painting them as a communist boogeyman Edit: spelling

[@alexbattin6482]

China itself does not argue that their current economic system is communism. The arguments they give essentially state that China "jumped" directly from feudalism to communism, and did not get to experience the benefits of capitalism in developing productive forces, so they have "reverted" back to what they call the "primary stage of socialism". This concept even seems to have appeared during the early years of the Soviet Union, as the NEP, but only for a small period of time.

[@polskaoperator376]

@@EggEnjoyer Yes. America is Authoritarian, it's Auth-Right.

[@polskaoperator376]

It's State-Capitalist, same with the USSR. Both are/were Marxist in name only

[@polskaoperator376]

@@EggEnjoyer I get it, the cringe polcomp kids destroyed it, it's still a useful tool. Until something better can replace it, I'll keep using it. No, they were never Marxist in practice, they even removed things that Marx advocated for.

[@polskaoperator376]

@@EggEnjoyer I understand the argument you're making, but these places weren't trying to achieve Marxism, their actions show that. The lack of non-state unions, complete detachment of the worker to control of their work. I don't see how that's going to make a Marxist society. Yugoslavia is the only place where your argument holds up.

[@mr.nugget1217]

Fun fact : Sichuan used to be one of the most populated regions of china if not the most populated.

[@12345krillin]

It still is no?

[@cassiopesysg5423]

it still is one of the most populated

[@Game_Hero]

It's because of Sichuan sauce, you should know about that, Mr.Nugget.

[@xihangyang]

chongching only split from sichuan in 1955

[@leonardwei3914]

"Security trumps prosperity." Although I do agree with most of your analysis, I would also point out that most conflicts China faced in modern history came from the sea, starting with western and Japanese powers carving out trade posts and enclaves on the eastern seaboard with "unequal treaties" culminating in the invasion by Imperial Japan during WWII. Despite not being in power during those periods, the Communist government is not shy in stoking these historical grievances to solidify their one party control. Another interesting aspect is that every conflict Communist China has involved itself with (Soviet Border disputes, Indian Border disputes, Korean War, Sino-Vietnamese war) did not occur in the West. So while invasions from the west were historically a thing, modern efforts to build up the poorer west are based more on perception of legitimacy for the Communist party. And nations such as South Korea and Japan draw their protection more from current security agreements with the U.S., less so than their coastal geography. But ultimately, China cannot abandon Communism because a Communist party cannot survive competition when it has sole monopoly on everything economic, political and social. Note: Edited for grammar and spelling.

[@TheReaper569]

thats what the worlds biggest naval re armanent program was for.

[@matthewmcdonald1301]

This video is completely bullshit, and I have to wonder where this guy gets his funding. Russia's the only threat to them by land and they are already at their border. Inland china was relevant in the past, but nowadays the land argument is irrelevant. Any inland nation would be entirely submissive to China for Trade, much like the central asian stan countries.

[@oJoJo]

@AileDiablo most early videos were about syria and turkey, i do believe this guy is from over there. i also believe that a peacefull place like tibet can exist without china being there, but appearantly it was always some sort of protectorate of china because buthan india and nepal kept invading the place

[@cleverparmesan4793]

@@matthewmcdonald1301 Videos about China generate more views, so...

[@stephenjenkins7971]

@AileDiablo An alliance of convenience. An alliance born of a common enemy, but with no trust. The "alliance" between Russia and China ends the second the US is out of the picture, or either power have less of a need to deal with the US in an antagonist role.

[@lesussie2237]

if large states like the USSR and the PRC need a centralized authoritarian government to maintain unity, how did the US, another large state maintain it's unity for the last 200 or so years under liberalism & democracy?

[@prashanttiwari5146]

I'm not an expert, but here is my view, US has 2 vast coast lines one connecting to Asia and other to Europe which creates wealth for vast swaths of population on both sides and the interior is made up of really fertile land which helps with farming and other agricultural activities keeping everything in balance. Moreover the singular American identity also helps.

[@megalocoman]

Cough cough American civil war cough cough.

[@alvarolopes5602]

They literally had the deadliest war in American history over it which ended with unprecedented centralization of federal power. The Roosevelt Presidency also helped do that.

[@anshusahai3120]

USSR and PRC have difficult geographies. It is evident form the fact that when USSR tried to liberalise itself, it disintegrated. Russia would have disintegrated further had Putin not consolidated power. Geography for both these nations, makes it difficult for them to remain stable and integrated without authoritarian control. Also, without proper buffer, both the nations are vulnerable to outside threats. USA on the other hand has great geography that allows for integrity and stability. Also, US has great geographic buffers from outside threats. The geographical fortunes have greatly helped USA in maintaining a free and prosperous nation.

[@georgearrivals]

Geography+Institutions

[@handsomegodhrawala52]

I love your style dude... The way you mix history, culture, facts and your opinion in a single sentence is remarkable. Keep up the good work!

[@EternalHappElements]

The Chinese came from the more interior region to begin with. It's not that the coast expanded to the interior but the interior expanded to the coast. The history culture root is still deep in the interior.

[@firstnamelastnamecanada337]

@Milosh Simonovski I'm sorry but I think your a little wrong because The EU didn't even exist until after the 1950s an it has 24 official languages not 1 and states are allowed to leave and join the EU as they please :)

[@freemanol]

@@firstnamelastnamecanada337 the issue is people try to fit everything into the western perspective and precedent. China is completely different if one really understand its ancient history. From those times, the different parts of china might have fought one another, but all of them have always agreed that they are all chinese and china should be united eventually. This is totally different from Europe and its mosaic of identities. The Romance of the 3 Kingdoms and the Art of War are interesting sources, i highly recommend them.

[@srbtlevse16]

@Milosh Simonovski nah, China is still a nation and has been for thousands of years. the EU isn't it's just a pre-state/bloc and even if it became a country it wouldn't be a nation

[@YeenMage]

Taiwan is NOT part of China de facto. Why did you show the first map including Taiwan? And yes, the so-called "Common Prosperity" has a lot of vague details that will enable the CCP to interpret any situation the way it pleases to "arrest anyone" or grab anyone's money.

[@tuams]

Your videos always teach me a little bit more about how the world works (and is being ruled by psychopaths). Especially about the countries that I wouldn't have actively looked in to. You're doing really good work!

[@RJT80]

Confuse this. There is a reason why ancient Persia has no artistic historical depictions of torture on record unlike most other ancient powers that used those depictions and their reputations as a threat. The Persian tactic was to convince a leader or leaders that it wasn't worth going to war with them and better to just become a vassal. Of course Persia had some of the most diabolical torture methods ever invented but they believed in soft power first that often put their vassals into debt to the point they were eventually just weakend and swallowed up entirely. China is mostly playing the same game.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

Yes, psychopaths always gravitate to positions of power, because that is what they want - to control people. Really true everywhere.

[@srbtlevse16]

8:01 why would it ever do that? not everyone's goal is to become a liberal democratic state, it is a cultural thing

[@pwnmeisterage]

One thing Asian cultures have always excelled at doing ... copying, emulating, and adapting the success of others. You can't argue with success. And the most successful countries in the world today are primarily democratic states.

[@le_draffar5370]

@@pwnmeisterage Nope, middle east countries gulf tell you the opposite. Not all people on earth wish to have a liberal democratic system, each nation has its specificity. Most importantly, countries need economic stability, safe. The CCP proposes it in their own way, the majority of Chinese do not complain about it otherwise their situation would be similar to Afghanistan, or many African countries.

[@tsunetasora]

yes. true also individually because no everyone is interested in politics, taking part in governing the country ("democratic" literally)

[@Ealsante]

"The affairs of the world are this way - what is long united must divide; what is long divided must unite." -- Romance of the Three Kingdoms

[@ibnu9969]

I cannot imagine what chaos looms when time has come for China to be divides again..

[@Dayvit78]

"What is being being created should be abandoned" Creative Arts - Total War: Three Kingdoms

[@slslbbn4096]

@@jakobinobles3263 indeed, now we have a China with massive corporations, the ability to determine which American oligarch family prospers or dies from targeted assassinations. It is true: control the American Oligarchs and you can control the American regime. The much touted "democracy" is a sham that has no bearing on decisions made by the American government.

[@enternalinferno]

Is the idea that coastal China would be democratic and liberal solely based upon the old idea that wealth makes democracy? Shirvan, you should know better than that

[@Joso997]

To be fair while Chinese run to buy Iphones they are less likely to want the war with the USA. Which means central government power diminishes in that sense

[@awwee34]

Was thinking this too^^^

[@ernstwiltmann6]

@baileyboy73 baileyboy73 Yes, he did at 6:37.

[@ernstwiltmann6]

@@Joso997 You got that wrong, the Chinese do not want a war, it is the US pushing it on them.

[@sdagoth3037]

I think he said it could be, not would be.

[@AhmetwithaT]

How is China's hinterland being poor and devoid of development different than the United States's mid section being poor and devoid of development different?

[@litmusing]

Ethnicities and geography.

[@mahadismail9569]

I don't remember him making a comparison, this video is about China if you can't read the title

[@AlecMuller]

It's about trade and infrastructure. Coastal regions world-wide have more efficient access to markets, because it costs far less to build & maintain a port than an interstate highway system, and the cost per ton moved is lower. The US was blessed with internal waterways that reduced the cost of market access early on, and we built railroads and interstates earlier than most countries. China's road and rail infrastructure is growing rapidly, but it's also hampered by corruption that puts other countries to shame. Also, from an authoritarian standpoint, the CCP doesn't have any incentive to help the interior catch up to the coast: preventing rebellion and sucking out raw materials & cheap labor is all that matters to them.

[@crazyshorts4278]

@@AlecMuller so accepted that US is evil but however CCP comes from nowhere and they become evil.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

In China's case, their hinterland was always poor until recent developments. In the United States case, their middle lands were rich but then became poor...in part because of trade with China

[@Birdylockso]

One of the most insightful videos, not only by CaspianReport standard, but also in the vast KZbin Channels. Great job.

[@aussieboy4090]

Global wealth inequality is an issue that must be tackled.

[@412StepUp]

There will always be a few rich, and a lot of poor. Always.

[@hobog]

12:08 equality argument is undermined by endemic racism against non-Han people, and current raised risk to women's job/body security in the face of increasingly desperate three-child policy

[@sthk1998]

We pay you to shut up, Or Else....

[@freemanol]

Surely in Taiwan korea and japan, women are not judged through their appearance right?

[@colinchen2638]

*EXCUSE ME; YOUR MAP STARTING AT **0:15** INDICATES THAT TAIWAN IS PART OF CHINA WHICH IS INCORRECT.*

[@mysticalrandomness4282]

The first map is of Chinas claims. The second shows the breakdown of their regions by economic prosperity, and Taiwan isnt concluded because its de facto not apart of China.

[@spiraboy]

I have lived in China for 4 years now, I somehow knew this. It's impossible to imagine China under a different political system. It seems to be going well for them.

[@E4439Qv5]

Appearances can be deceiving.

[@MrWill1729]

@@E4439Qv5 if you so insist....

[@leihtory7423]

well china does have elections.

[@TreeGod.]

That sounds like Stockholm syndrome If you said anything bad about China on the internet or in real life, you would be arrested. That’s not a good thing

[@MrWill1729]

@@TreeGod. "If you said anything bad about China on the internet or in real life, you would be arrested. That’s not a good thing" Spoken by someone who has not lived in China

[@alexjgilpin]

I... disagree, actually. Even the US has a federal regional wealth redistribution system between states. This isn't something you need to have an autocratic state to do. In fact, I'd say social democracies like the Scandinavians are a lot *better* at it.

[@KommentarSpaltenKrieger]

Yeah, it sounds convincing on a surface-level, but communism has little to do with wealth distribution. Not even in practice. Practically speaking, it would be more in line to develop industry in impoverished regions than to redistribute wealth from regions already industrialised.

[@gaganbhattacharya9890]

Yeah, but the intents are different e.g. democracies actually do it for equality while communist authoritarian systems do (or pretend to do by narrative or propaganda) it for creating stability in order to retain power!

[@michaelbread5906]

Small population of a homogeneous people + barrels of oil = economic success.

[@jvs333]

@alrx gilpin 100% agree California’s federal taxes subsidized the bottom 10 red dead beat states, New York, Washington and California are the big donor states to places like Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc, most of the South except Florida and Georgia. Funny how all these welfare red states are all for states rights except when it comes to paying federal taxes, then it’s “uncle fed”. China unlike the US is investing in infrastructure in western China (BRI development of roads, hi-speed passenger and freight rail, large renewable energy development) as well as expanding cotton farms in Xinjiang as an export product to increase economic development. China is looking to the future while the US is fighting with it self trying to cling to the past (1950s and in the trumpubliqanon cult party the 1850s).

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

I'd say the difference is that China is holding on to all these economically unproductive territories because it needs a geographic buffer. All they need from these territories, for the most part, is for them to physically exist and not blow up. They're only marginally part of China. That leads to a different kind of wealth redistribution compared to building up underdeveloped areas in your own country that you're actually planning to _do_ stuff with.

[@Multirightguy]

The word communism is being misused in this video. The focus is layed on distributive social policy not communism as a whole. Title should have been something like: "Why China cannot abandon Welfarism" .

[@ralphtarraf4003]

Wouldn't be captivating or interesting enough

[@Emilechen]

for thousand years, Southern rich provinces should share wealth with Northern provinces, and the North ensure the security of the South, China even built the Great Canal that links Beijibg to Jiangsu province,

[@johnl.7754]

He is making it out to be much more of a problem then it actually is since this poor region only has a very small population like under 10% of entire China

[@Huy-G-Le]

Channel like this really map me appreciate geography. If only I know this is my calling earlier. Before I picking coding. *Massive sigh with PTSD of fixing error message* .

[@TheZzpop]

I feel like you are missing the point that Chinna may "subsidize" the poor interior with the wealth of the developed coast but it also keeps the interior poor in the first place and subsdizes the wealth of the coastal regions through the brutal repressive recource extaction and forced low skill labor exploitation of the interior!!!! Also all of the best funded social programs are only availbe to citezens of costal provinces and there is an internal passport system which makes it incredibly dificult for people from the interior to imigrate to costal citeis in order to take advantage of those social programs, receive an educaiton, and uplift their circumstances!!!!

[@marlarki5280]

Honestly a really stupid take, without the restriction on internal population movement you would get slums that puts manilla and Delhi to shame and ending it would be an impossible task.

[@cerumen]

2:14 the term 'Communism' may be used in different ways, but true communism is very well defined. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society where the means of production (the mechanism of industry) is collectively owned and controlled by the people who perform the labour associated with it. What you're describing is state socialism, "socialism in one country", where a vanguard authoritarian political party attempts to establish a system that either approximates a communist society, or which the party pledges will eventually lead to one. Also, neither communism nor state socialism are intended to distribute resources 'equally', but instead 'equitably' - 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. I would expect a geopolitics channel to distinguish this sort of fundamental political terminology, so I am now surprised and concerned, as I need to feel I can trust in the research being presented.

[@gorbachevspizzahut]

Yep this video was poorly researched Gorbachev disapproves

[@chaosXP3RT]

I just wanna say that I really love this channel! Keep up the good work. I sit down and set aside time to watch every video! And they also seem well-researched and as near as non-bias as possible!

[@hughjass1044]

It's always a great day when there's a Caspian Report video waiting for me in my notifications. Best channel on YT!

[@崔莱]

Oh boy, you must be new to KZbin if you think this is the best it's got.

[@jsplit9716]

the thing is: one of the reasons the coast is that rich is that in the beginning capitalism was only allowed there and that for years. Also, you really weren't allowed to move back then.

[@TheIT221]

A democratic federation like America gives money to the poorer regions just like this video talks about. Communism isn’t the only system that subsidies their interior

[@kevinmsft]

A pitfall that almost every Westerner (who is not a historian) falls into when thinking about China is... China has 2200 years of centralized government and 70 years of pseudo-Communism. The country is way more affected by the 2200 years of history than whatever form of Communism that is... current Chinese government set up is how it always worked: an "emperor" in the capital, strong centralized government, huge bureaucracy running across capital, provinces, cities, etc... and yes it's always quite authoritarian but also with a strong Confucius-influenced "empire has to save/serve the people" culture. None of it has anything to do with "Communism".... it's how Chinese are governed for 2 millennia. That's why Chinese people are not rising up any time soon, they are Ok with this system.

[@rncmv]

even some historians are not safe from falling into this pitfall

[@jasonreed7522]

Granted lots of Chinese are unaware of the ideals of the west, but even if you could tell every last Chinese citizen what the real ideals of the west are, i doubt you would see anything more than a mass migration towards other countries and the remaining Chinese would be extra infavor of the old authoritarian ways. This is also why Hong Kong has so much difficulty integrating into China, it was lrased to the UK as some islands with mud huts for 100 years, and at the end of the lease a thriving capitalist Metropolis was returned. Hong Kong was essentially gifted with the legacy if the UK as a sort of balance between Freedom and Authoritarianism, and this doesn't blend well with traditional Chinese Authoritarianism. Granted i don't think you could enfore the US government on the UK (system not rule from Washington) and have it go particularly well and they are still ideologically compatable.

[@kevinmsft]

@@jasonreed7522 yes all Chinese people cannot wait to leave their homeland and move to the West, because the West is so wonderful and so free... LOL. Keep telling yourself that. Also... How many Hong Kongers have emigrated out of HK even after the protests? Around 50K out of 7 million... What an exodus! What a proof of Western superiority!

[@jasonreed7522]

@@kevinmsft i did not say all, if even 1% migrated away that would count as a massive migration / demographic shift. And its not like this hasn't happened before, one example that comes to mind is during the industrial revolution when impoverished Chinese immigrated to America creating all of the "Chinatown" districts in major cities like NYC and LA. Granted this migration was for economic and not ideological reasons. PS: leaving is easier than violently overthrowing an authoritarian regime, by alot. Especially if you don't have the 5% of the population minimum to have a successful revolution. (Historical figure) Obviously the ideal case (for the scenario where you somehow tell every chinese citizen the true western ideals) would be an internal revolution but for that you need to convince 5% of the population to actively change their government (which would mean violence as the CCP won't just step down), if you don't hit 5% willing to overthrow the government it won't work and the next best case for thise who do want freedom is to run away. (There are lots of stories of people fleeing oppressive regimes including china to start over in another country)

[@kevinmsft]

@@jasonreed7522 LOL you are just making sad arguments now... Initially you said "God if all Chinese people know how wonderful the West is, they will all escape", now I told you "not really, not many people are leaving even HK and most Chinese people hate you guys", you then changed the tune "even 1% leaving is a massive demographic shift". Mmm... Why? 1% leaving is fine. You are just looking for data points that prove your delusional Western superiority.... As a American who know China very well I am just telling you... That's your pure delusion. Western civilizations esp US have their own set of huge social problems: how many "vote and regret" we have for each election? How many chronic druggies and homeless? Not to mention racism, income inequality, breakdown of social bonds, hyper partisanship, fake news everywhere, mass media indoctrination, inefficient government, etc.

[@ylr622]

Yes, China's inner provinces are poorer on a per capita basis, at the same time, their pricing index is much lower too. Many coastal city dwellers now moving out to cheaper places to live.

[@whatsgoingon92]

That's not necessarily true that pricing index is much lower in Chinese inner provinces. If you wanna get the rest of "Eastern Chinese standard stuff", it costs way more. If you can live like the local ethnic minority, that can be true to an extent but on average, many of the stuff have to be transported from the more prosperous parts to them so it generally just costs more. Life will be unthinkably hard in an economic sense if the CCP doesn't subsidise a lot of things for people in the inner provinces.

[@ylr622]

@@whatsgoingon92 Yes, not everything is cheaper in inner China, but the major part of living costs is housing. When housing prices are low, then most other stuff becomes cheaper starting with labor. It's the same in the US, you can't expect someone to live off the same salary in Midwest US and in cities like NY or LA.

[@whatsgoingon92]

@@ylr622 Again, housing prices are low if you can live like ethnic minorities in Tibet, Xinjiang, etc but if you want a standard Eastern China flat in big cities in the inner provinces, it's still fairly expensive in proportion to local wages. In the inner provinces with ethnic Han majority, it could be cheaper, for instance in Gansu because these things are fairly standard there and the logistics isn't as complicated. If you've got some life experiences in these regions, you'd feel the difference.

[@ylr622]

@@whatsgoingon92 That's not true. I travel throughout China. Take Changsha for example, wages are maybe 1/3 of Shanghai and higher, but housing is only 1/6, and that's a provincial capital. Even more affordable in 4th tier cities.

[@Alejojojo6]

You truly undermined one thing which is crucial, the interior and north is where all the natural resources are. Resources most of the chinese need to keep up with their economy and even to survive and not be caught by having to import from other countries. China cannot loose the western regions because that makes them have resources. If they lose western and northern china, they loose all access to the valious and very much needed resources needed by the east of China.

[@yesyes1842]

The title of this video isn't accurate. China is labelled as a communist state that long abandoned communism economic practices in favor of capitalism in past decades. They are now moving towards socialism from capitalism. "Why China cannot abandon communism?" just isn't an accurate description of what is happening inside China today.

[@jacobw2573]

they never really abandoned marxism, they have built up their economy through liberalization, but never ceded the sovereignty of the country to the market. in other words, the people have been in control the whole time, which is why they are a leader of human society with no end in sight.

[@yesyes1842]

Jacob W I think what you are describing is China is a autocracy which is true. And then your personal political stereotypes on it. The form of non-control you’re describing is democracy right? Something China has never had in 5000 years. By your beliefs they’ve been forever under control, the culture is “control”. Btw not arguing against democracy, just giving you their POV. Xi adopts elements of marxism but not leaders from Deng, Zhang, to Hu. I think one thing about Chinese politics of the past 150 years is they place importance not on values, beliefs or systems but rather on resources, material and development. They’ve scrapped dynasties, maoism, now some elements of capitalism and I have no doubt when the leaders believe socialism doesnt work they will scrap that too and try something else. Their main priority isn’t around political ideology. They don’t have a democracy because they dont think it works, that it’ll slow things down to a crawl and nothing gets done. You can disagree and say they are wrong, I’m just saying they genuinely believe that. Its not some obsession on marxism. They continue to change. Hu wasn’t a marxist.

[@iggyzeta9755]

If your wealth and company (which you needed to work with the party to create anyway) is easily seized by the state on a whim and the market is absolutely unfree then you are not operating a capitalist economy. It's like Hitler said "Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings". Coupled with the supremacist chauvinism that has been a mainstay of Chinese civilization since they first started thinking they were literally the only civilization and all other countries are merely current or future tributary barbarians, China's socialism is looking very national, without the hostility to Marxism that Nazi Germany's socialism necessitated.

[@yesyes1842]

Ignoramus the Zetetic Your reply signals alot of political prejudice. You just tied an economic model discussion to Hitler lol. Communism to nazis. They are different concepts but yet you chose Hitler as an example to talk about how the Chinese manage their economy. Lol if you want to talk about attacks on humanity Instead I would think the group collectively called the west did more. Genocide across 3 continents and they speak some form of western european language today in Australia, South America and North America and enslaved a 4th continent called Africa and fighting a holy war with Middle East while telling the world Asia is a dangerous place so state of the art nuclear weapons and submarines are brought there. Yet lets ignore that talk about how “Ancient” China thought they were the center of the world. Ok… very objective no bias view of how human history played out.

[@yesyes1842]

Ignoramus the Zetetic oh and lets talk about China “supremacist” views. Lol! Is western culture talking about “supremacist views”? Thats crazy… lol lets poll the world who has a more supremacist view, Chinese culture of western culture. Lets ask the global muslims and people of African descent that question. Hitler Germany is from that region. Since we’re generalizing here lets just generalize! Lets poll the Chinese randomly getting beat up for racism in western countries cause of covid or politics.

[@sarfcowst]

Much of your analysis reflects the Communist Party's outlook. It's worth pointing out the deep flaws in China's assumptions and thinking. Security is such a difficulty mainly because China has no allies. It has seldom in its history cultivated any form of mutual cooperation with other important or influential nations. Instead it has acted and reacted in a resentful and disdainful way to other powers and in an exploitative or manipulative manner to its weaker neighbours. It is the primary cause of all the difficulties that it finds itself in. Being mistrusted by everyone else really limits your choices.

[@doujinflip]

A lot of it comes from the CPC itself, whose authoritarian practices of vaguely enforcing broadly-defined rules breeds mistrust between people. Had the Mainland gone more the way of democratized Táiwān, the Chinese people would likely turn out much more open and trusting, and China's post-imperial rise could have been better founded, while also more tolerated if not authentically welcomed by the rest of the world. However, delegating power to the people is a concept that is very novel to classically top-down Chinese culture, and a constant competition for attractiveness that the CPC would be terrified to play.

[@freemanol]

some of the tensions between china and its neighbours go back centuries, which predates the communist government for example the vietnamese, tibetans and turkic tribes. i think it is a mistake to see China in its current form and historical as a closed society, unwilling to work with the rest of the world. china has always been a trading nation, and has used trade as the primary currency in its relationship with its neighbours and beyond. in fact for most of its history, china was many times more prosperous than europe, and it never tried to conquer korea, japan, not even the island of taiwan. 2 wrongs don't make a right but i'd like you to invite you to see how unavoidable tensions are between a superpower and its neighbours. the US have pressured mexico, cuba and many other latin american countries through threats and covert ops, which are well documented. superpowers bully. because they can. i think the good vs evil narrative is a slippery slope that will only lead to incorrect observation. as much as i have disdain for the prevailing anti-china view in the west, I try to remember that ultimately we all want a more peaceful world and prosperity for all, and I try to see people like you as slightly misguided rather than inherently evil. I hope you can do the same, by seeing the glass half full when it comes to china's progress and asia's future.

[@mabeSc]

@@freemanol Well-written and thought out comment, you do rarely see them nowadays. Even the allies of the US were mostly formed during WW2 and the Cold War, where a distant superpower was preferable to a superpower that was close and able to exercise its full force on the nearby countries.

[@sarfcowst]

​@@freemanol I am well aware that reality is somewhat less rosy than you paint it. The very fact that large areas of western China are the home of substantial (and unhappy) ethnic minorities shows that conquest by China is the basis of their inclusion in the PRC against their will. You make a several misleading statements. China did try to conquer Korea on a few occasions firstly setting up Han commanderies in the north in the 1st c. BC and also a failed invasion under the Tang in the 7th c. AD, amongst others ; also occupied Vietnam for over 1000 years - many other examples can be added. Secondly most imperial policy did in fact favour a closed society in which trade was at a much lower level than in South Asia for instance. Right up to the Opium War in 1839-42 it was usually difficult to maintain regular trading relations with China and the emperors routinely refused requests for trade agreements in dismissive terms. Admittedly most Westerners had a very chauvinistic attitude to Asians in the past but it was always standard practice in Chinese official circles (and probably still is) to describe all foreigners in very insulting and demeaning terms. Furthermore comparing the USA's relationships with neighbours only shows the contrast because the USA has many allies while China still has none! The "anti-China view in the West" you mention stems from the PRC's ruthless exploitation of trading opportunities in other countries whilst discriminating against foreigners' business in contravention of pledges. You may very condescendingly call me "slightly misguided" but what I can tell is that you are only interested in seeing what you want to see.

[@freemanol]

@@mabeSc thank you.

[@Wyloff]

In this pursuit of stability, the entire country is in only 1 timezone: that of Beijing. As a result, 1 in 4 people on Earth live in +8 UTC.

[@gavinyeomans]

while this is technically true, people in the western regions often use unofficial local times as well as Beijing time. plus, the vast majority of the population lives in the east and would be in that timezone anyways even if china hadn't standardized the time

[@WonderMagician]

Your reports are instructive and fact-based. Thank you.

[@Andy-em8xt]

I usually love your videos but I think there's a lot of flaws in your analysis. One, insuring the interior regions do not fall behind the coastal regions is not really communism. Two, the greater concern is actually inequality within a region or city. This type of inequality is much more destabilizing, as people can see the stark differences in wealth. Three, China's coast is not as rich as Japan or South Korea, most of the costal regions have GDP of around $15k per capita compared to $30k for SK or $40k for Japan. Lastly, the ruling elites, are mostly from the prosperous costal regions. I do not think the coast would automatically be a democratic free society. In fact an argument can be made that the wealthy have a vested interest in the status quo more so than the non elites.

[@CB-bl8sp]

Andy, you don’t seem to consider the possibility of the impact of transferring large sum of money to the interiors on the development of the coastal regions. If Japan or South Korea had to transfer money to another nation do you believe it could maintain a 40k or 30k gdp per cap annually?

[@teamjupeter9451]

@@CB-bl8sp SK and Japan also transfer money to another regions in the nation. For example, the GDP per capita of Ulsan, where Hyundai Automobile works, and Gwacheon, where Samsung Semiconductor is, are quite above $60k, but they subsidize other interior farming regions.

[@raptorhacker599]

@@CB-bl8sp dude every country on the planet has to redistribute wealth and they dont have to use communism for that.

[@chrismcaulay7805]

@@CB-bl8sp You realize most of the materials that the coast uses to make money comes from the interior right? FFS man think critically.

[@Armouropoulos]

11:25 it is fascinating how China is isolating India in its economic strategies.

[@calvinhoward3808]

India isolated itself from China. They offered India a chance to join BRI AND RCEP, but India refused

[@heinrichhimmler3781]

Chinese Leaders Are Smart China Strategy "Win War Without Fight"

[@hellomoto1426]

India needs way to north

[@sophisticatedthumb5364]

no india isolated itself china asked india to join

[@samkalapseudo8998]

Indian always think they are superpower. they look down on China all the time, and they feel superiority as great Britain inheritor. so they are very anti-China

[@_joapa]

China truly is a black mirror episode in the making in one way or another.

[@EatMyShortsAU]

Western countries are not far behind.

[@MrMediator24]

@@EatMyShortsAU I think being behind is still better than being already a Black Mirror

[@Buckzoo2030]

What a shallow idea. China needs a central govt, that’s it, to balance regional needs. If it were not communism it would be something else.

[@polskaoperator376]

Ik, people conflating Communism with State-Capitalism is getting old.

[@onlyplaysveigar7241]

The notion of security from the eastern regions is overstated, historically, the source of Chinese instability has always been from it's western coasts or from it's interior. Ultimately, it's because of China's inept governance (Especially during times of irreversibly bad decision making, such as refusing to adopt breakthrough western technologies which would've given it a competitive edge in industrializing and maintaining a modern defense force). Overall, the necessity for enacting common prosperity is to derive it's legitimacy. I think Shirivan is an amazing commentator, but I think i disagree with his notion.

[@yytyytg]

Innovation is slow in China and all the emphasis and social attitude were moved to keep the system stable.

[@joshtep6784]

This is an oversimplification video, because while the coastal regions generate the most wealth, the interior has much more value than simply being a buffer zone. Let's also not forget to mention that it's only been a few centuries where seafaring trade has become to pinnacle of global trade. At one point, it was the interior of China that was just as wealthy if not more so than the coastal regions. China is in the right trajectory, because it has always been a wealthy China willing to trade with the Asian continent that led to the formation of the Silkroad. Many of Asia's most fascinating kingdoms and golden periods were because of eastbound and westbound land trade with China. There's big interests with China's Belt and Road Initiative and it's not an uncertainty that it will be a boon for China. It's a fact. China has built HIGHSPEED rail in the desert and mountains. China has opened critical land ports throughout its borders and generating trade. It's working. China has the best land borders that Russia can only dream of, and the biggest army in the world. China continues to undermind America's gunboat policy and economic unilateral rule. Now you have America playing by the rules with a leash growing shorter and shorter every year. Time is on China's side.

[@sc1338]

China is eating itself. China has already peaked imo.

[@joshtep6784]

@@sc1338 That is insanely incorrect. China continues to build upon it's infrastructure and economy by the day. When you look at China's innovation into logistic networks, green technology, space exploration, urban development, AI development, etc., it's pretty evident that China has alot of potential to go. On the contrary, the West and Japan have peaked when you look at how limited they are able to develop infrastructure and create revolutionary demographic changes. China's rural population and underdeveloped provinces shows that there's massive development potential. The middle class in China continues to grow, poverty continues to decline, alot of the world's fortune 500 companies are in China, China has the world's largest amount of billionaires, and its domestic market has astronomical potential. This is why Western companies and governments are mad at China. They want a piece of the pie and they won't get it.

[@joshtep6784]

@@sc1338 Alot of people are worried about China because the margin of error opportunity for the Chinese experiment has almost completely disappeared. You can always tell anything is doing good for themselves/itself by how loud your enemies are.

[@Kongajinken]

You have it backward, America is undermining China's gunboat policy. Stop and ask yourself why so many countries are joining the US against China? Hint its not because America is great, its because they view China as a much bigger threat than America. The only country on earth that views America as gunboat is China because America is fighting to stop China from bullying its neighbors.

[@schaudhurikol]

The one liners at the end make these videos pure gold.

[@Primetime94]

Yeah. Who cares if the video is accurate. The one liners are all that matters.

[@howellPan]

but even the poorest regions in China (Xinjiang, Tibet etc) have better GDP per capital ($7000 quoting Shirvan) than India's richest province (Goa, $6000 per Google). So Chinese system seems to work well for a hugely diverse yet populous country, to ensure everyone at least get to share a slice of the development.

[@PS-re4tr]

I feel like asking "Why doesn't China abandon communism?" is like asking "Why doesn't the USA abandon democracy?". Marxist-Leninist thought is the foundation of the Chinese state, and all of contemporary China's ideological developments are based in it and socialist principles. They aren't going to abandon that. If anything, the celebrations of the Communist party's centenary earlier this year and the writings of Xi Jinping emphasize the PRC's intentions to become a truly socialist state in line with Marxist thought.

[@Klyce]

Very interesting. I'd like to see a video on how China would break up and how the government would try to respond to a breakup.

[@elmohead]

It is already in 2 pieces: mainland and Taiwan. The civil war is still going on.

[@dirckthedork-knight1201]

Me too

[@gluebox]

It's people like you to why foreigners have less and less access to regions of China. Always starting shit. Let's see a break up of your country. How about that!

[@adriankunkel3397]

I love your content... And, beyond the fact that my country is not important at all on the global stage, I would find it amazing if you did this kind of geopolitical analysis with Argentina... Never in my three-decade-long life did I ever come across anything that resembles your line of thought, applied to my country. Not even by local pundits.

[@ALKalashnikov]

Argentina figura en algunos resumenes del canal sobre la region, pero suele tener una vision muy superficial, quedandose en la anecdota politica. Yo pensaria que la falta de contenido con perpectiva geopolítica sobre el pais tiene que ver con que estos marcos teoricos tienen mucho mas peso en el mundo anglosajon. Pero para nada es porque Argentina no sea importante, estrategica y economicamente. Tenemos el acceso a toda la cuenca del parana, el paso entre dos oceanos, la planicie fertil mas grande del mundo, reservas enormes de litio, etc. Seria verdaderamente muy interesante ver material al respecto, hay, pero casi todo en textos academicos, cuestion de leer.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

The channel VisualPolitik absolutely loves Argentina! Loves to hate on it, to be precise...

[@ALKalashnikov]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn VisualPolitik is just propaganda, for some reason obsessed with peronism, but from a very narrow and childish view. Guess they appeal to some specific kind of viewers, but it not recommendable.

[@stephenjenkins7971]

@@ALKalashnikov It's clickbait and very fast-food-like. It's a surface examination without delving deeply into the issue barring the things everyone can see. "Peronism bad" is the surface level stuff, but there's more to Argentina than just that.

[@keeganmoonshine7183]

I recommend Bad empanada's video on Argentinian economy/history. It was very well made.

[@philippedefechereux8740]

Powerful insight into China's need for Communism, and the consequential challenged facing the regime. Outstanding!

[@ryddlerking7646]

The fact that you put the country of Tawain as just one more part of the CCP in the global map in the beginning of the video in 00:13 says enough about this for me. This cannot be a simple "mistake" or slip of mind in the production of this video.

[@MasonGreenWeed]

It was de jure part of PRC

[@gorbachevspizzahut]

I agree. This video reeked of apologetics unsubscribed from the guy

[@gatonegro87778]

Cope

[@Wargunsfan]

One of the most erudite and insightful channels on this platform. I learn new things with each video. I now have a better understanding of the challenges facing China and its leaders. A big thank you to the Caspian Report!

[@firstnamelastnamecanada337]

This video was actually really bad. The rural areas are poor that the coastal ones. Yea it's like that in every country not just China and a lot of capitalist democracies give money to the poorer states. Also China isn't doing that much to help the poorer state except put Uyghurs into concentration camps. This video just seams to be an excuse full of buzz words to justify dictatorship in China

[@kkcq8446]

At least it provides evidence to support its arguments.

[@firstnamelastnamecanada337]

@@kkcq8446 Yea cause buzz words are great evidence

[@firstnamelastnamecanada337]

@@kkcq8446 No I thought that this video was pretty bad. Most democratic capitalist country have poor rural areas that the government subsidises nothing new there. Also China heavily discriminates against the minorities in these rural areas and the best and road jut exploits them. The video seems full of buzz words and the guy doesn't even realise that in a democratic country there would probably be more social programs for the poor

[@kkcq8446]

@@firstnamelastnamecanada337 Better than no words at all.

[@RangeMcrangeface]

I am not convinced by this line of thought. It is used to explain not only Chinese authoritarianism, but Russian as well. Improvised states have every incentive to align themselves with wealthy states. They know they are not better off without them. This is demonstrated by Scotlands inability to convince enough of its citizens to breakaway from wealthier England.

[@ayanlethesomali7357]

Scottish and English people have nearly the same culture and the Scotsmen have switched over to the English language. Interior China is full of diverse ethnic and religious minorities who would prefer independence over statehood with the Han.

[@sarcasmo57]

"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" - Romance of the Three kingdoms

[@foute90s]

Western Europe also financially supports Eastern Europe's growth for security reasons and is not a communist system. It even is to prevent communism spreading. Proving there are alternatives to your analysis

[@zz3690]

No, it doesn't. It sucks the raw materials from Eastern Europe (do the research on who owns the mines) and exacerbates the brain drain, which is very detrimental for Eastern Europe's growth. Edit: Even the "donations" which come from Western Europe into Eastern Europe are usually used by Western European companies (e.g. infrastructure development) which use local companies as subcontractors.

[@freemanol]

And how is that playing along? The EU is tearing itself apart when this redistribution doesn't result in the expected behaviour from those eastern countries

[@Thamian]

It is worth noting that when it comes to Tibet, the security aspect isn't just a buffer zone - it's also the water supply: A significant percentage (iirc, about 50%) of China's freshwaster comes from Himalayan glaciers - meltwater that collects across the tibetan plateau and flows off into the Yangtze and Yellow river - the mountain silts that come with it also play a significant part in keeping the Yellow river basin (one of the most fertile farming regions on earth) well fertilized. As such, maintaining control of Tibet is an immediate existential imperative for China, as the sheer scale of it's population makes feeding and watering it difficult enough, without the prospect of some hostile force cutting that supply off, or redirecting it elsewhere.

[@Bournetolive]

Correct, although the Yellow and Yangtze originate in Qinghai province, not the Tibet Autonomous Region (aka the region that was under direct rule of Dalai Lama)

[@markofmuse]

I've been watching this channel for a while, and this video really bring me something very interesting to think about. As a native Chinese, I was born and raised in Guizhou province, aka the heartland of China in this video. Back then, it was and still is amongst the poorest province in China. I remembered my mom and dad once told me that our ancestor came from the richer coastal area in Ming dynasty to "solidify" Guizhou province, when it was still a very remote region from the central government, and it was a frontier between Han Chinese and other ethnic minority back then. I guess this assimilation and integration happen all through chinse history. When a security reason ranks higher then development and prosperity, the central government, no matter which dynasty, would always choose to seek harsher control of its population, and always try to expand its secure zone. It is not because they like to, but they don't have other options. I used to believe that Chinese are more conservative, and are harder to understand liberty and equality. We seems to embrace authoritarian over democratic governance, appreciate collective mentality over individuality, and advocate strong homogeneity over diversity. It baffled me for quite a long time that WHY in all the nations and people on earth, we choose to go the opposite direction. However, this video really broaden my perspective, and also revealed other possible geopolitical reasons that the modern China is forged in such manner.

[@zjeee]

Well obviously there is no one reason to cover all bases, it's hard to run an effective democracy without an economic base and educated population and China had a literacy rate of around 20% in the 1950s and it's not until the 1980s and forward where economic progress was made. I find it very hard to see China being able to have a democracy under such circumstances before the 1980s even if they actually wanted to. A great example is to observe democracies in the Middle east and Africa, democracies rarely work well without a strong economy and an educated population. These days the foundations are much stronger in China and I am sure it could work but obviously the communist party would never allow such a thing. But yeah you are right there is nothing specific about Chinese culture that makes them choose one way of governance over the other, the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan had no problem whatsoever adopting western culture and democratic elements. But just the mere size of China and the division among the minorities would probably shrink it's size very quickly should they try to adopt democracy. Xinjiang, Yunnan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia would break off as soon as they got the chance without an authoritarian state around.

[@张楗萍]

@@zjeee I’m Chinese !u are fucking real Chinese expert😂u know nothing about China history and culture!

[@C.Fecteau-AU-MJ13]

@@张楗萍 I do know A LOT about modern Chinese history, the underlying Sino culture and their relative relationships to the current state of geopolitical affairs... Looks to me the person above has a pretty good understanding of it. It's the people who are living under the CCP who don't know anything about their own history... Because it was deliberately destroyed and replaced with the most catastrophic technocratic fascist dictatorship the world has ever seen... So far.

[@Rudyjosephjr]

Democracy? More like Democrazy.

[@mettaworldpeace9836]

Obviously you slept in your history class. it is not so hard to understand why China is China if you know its history.

[@joerieke300]

Considering that defined communism is a classless moneylless society with no government. I am pretty sure you meant socialism because communism has never been attempted at a national level.

[@aussieboy4090]

Common prosperity just means Social Democracy like in Europe. It's not Communism or Socialism.

[@manofsan]

Neither Xi Jinping nor the rest of the CCP are going to allow any kind of democracy, whether social democracy or otherwise. They don't want to end up like Gorbachev (doing Pizza Hut commercials), or Ceaucescus, etc (dead). You may remember Beijing's last reaction to demands for democracy: Tiananmen Square.

[@pickledbushman]

I disagree with this, you can have welfare and socialism, including democratic socialism and still maintain growth and stability. Many countries, including mine have entire provinces that are much much poorer (in resources and opportunities) , that are looked after by the state as a whole . This is a common issue for countries to face, and doesnt require communism.

[@freemanol]

Scandinavian style socialism is all we should be aiming for, and hope to see china one day achieving it

[@shraka]

Universal suffrage is the right to vote for everyone regardless of status, a form of democracy. Your country might have socialist components, though what you're describing is social liberal capitalism.

[@wazzupdj98d61]

Agreed that it is very much possible for capitalist countries to provide a strong welfare state. The main problem is, how would China arrive at such a destination without falling into despotism? The collapse of the USSR was ultimately an attempt to reach such a state, and IMO it failed miserably. The transition was so abrupt and destabilizing that the resulting chaos made Russia revert back to something resembling Russian absolutism under "the oligarchs". It exists, yes, but is it even feasible for the immense Chinese society? Isn't it a better idea to forego these attempts, and instead focus on making the current system more egalitarian? These are devil's advocate questions, I don't necessarily agree with them, but they should be considered in earnest.

[@shraka]

@@freemanol American media propaganda is pretty strong on the old socialism thing. It's almost never used in the textbook way by the left or the right. Scandinavian countries are all social liberal capitalist countries with some socialist industries. You should leapfrog Scandinavian countries and go for a heavier socialist component rather than playing catch up honestly.

[@freemanol]

@@shraka ah tell me about it, my US relatives are die hard free-market-ists. tbh i need to try to imagine a practical possibility of a welfare state that is even more socialist than the Scandinavians are. it's hard to imagine that becoming a reality in our lifetime, at least for me

[@jasastopar]

I love how china "the biggest present communist country" is also one of the least communtist countries in the world

[@thathandsomedevil0828]

"Communism with Chinese characteristics".

[@ilvailvandoniherde496]

Perhaps because people like you never really understand marxism.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@ilvailvandoniherde496 what is Marxist about the free market is china?

[@thathandsomedevil0828]

@@ilvailvandoniherde496 oh but we do, it's all a smoke screen to grab people's wealth and money and it always results in a few people controlling all the wealth and people. It is perhaps you who does not understand marxist ideology.

[@ilvailvandoniherde496]

@@thathandsomedevil0828 What you describe is capitalism, not marxism. Wealth, banks, hospitals, rent buildings etc. in the hand of few. It is called neoliberalism...people in west are becoming poorer because of this...without marxism.

[@leepsoongoh2244]

@CaspianReport From 9.50 to 10.00 clip were showing the pagoda of Kek Lok Si Temple located in Penang, Malaysia which is not in China!!!

[@Zaknyfein]

Pressure from rising wages means that the Chinese economy is in transition with an expanding tertiary sector. The problem for China is that while we were all happy enough to accept their cheap manufactured goods, the stark difference in values means we're very suspicious of their tradable services such as those offered by companies such as Huawei. 17 different border disputes with its neighbours, picking fights with any who do not submit to its will means that this economic transition might be quite painful.

[@lakeblackBLM]

COMMUNISM WILL PREVAIL

[@KampGallery]

best quote: "It's darkest before it's totally black". Thought provoking.

[@gxlorp]

Sounds like you've been smoking a little weed

[@mettaworldpeace9836]

Summary: external threat drives social equality. this also explains the lack of it in US.

[@gustavolrcoelho]

You clearly dind't pay attention to the video.

[@MrHeavy466]

0:14 Why is Taiwan included with China?