I like your longer form videos. There is something in the youtube algorithm that makes 20-30 minutes a valuable time period for the attention span of certain people. I'm not sure how it works because I'm not a youtuber, but I have heard other youtubers say that you can game the system. Another valuable segment length are the really short 5-20 second tiktok type of videos. Again, I don't know what the advantage is or how it works on the algorithm.
Thank! That's a lot of digest. In general, I'm not confident enough to make any predictions or general theories about the Xi admin (or Putin, or Kim). The problem with one-man dictatorships is that they're arbitrary. Things can change based on what's going on in one person's head. All I can predict is that they'll all mess up at some point.
Great video as usual, I hope you don't mind if I share some unstructured thoughts. It's unfortunately the case that many Western "China watchers" (especially those who haven't spent a long time in China) are often too credulous and even gullible when it comes to believing Chinese propaganda. The concept of collective leadership is a good example: 集体领导体制 is a propaganda phrase that gained prominence during the Hu-Wen era, but some Sinologists took it as a kind of sacred model. Another example that comes to mind is Kevin Rudd (my country's former leader) writing a whole book on Xi Jinping's "Marxist-Leninist ideology," which essentially just regurgitates the regime's propaganda without critically analyzing it. It's not a genuine attempt to form an independent theory about Chinese political economy in the 21st century. I think the most interesting point you made in the video was about how the knowledge of "factions" became entirely useless after Xi's ascension. This is a crucial point, right? If the underlying assumptions of your model are wrong, then any knowledge derived from it is going to be useless. So, how should people approach Chinese politics "the right way"? In my humble opinion, there are two essential elements for a productive discourse on Chinese politics. A Historical Approach: The reason why social scientists get so many things, like collective leadership, wrong is quite simple. It's not that they're worse at "science" than other types of scientists, but rather that they lack experimental evidence and have to make generalizations based on very limited information. There is no perfect solution to this issue, but I think it makes sense to 以史为鉴-use history as a mirror. This can give us a better understanding not just of new developments, but also of historical contingency. After all, nothing comes from nothing; every system relies on its antecedents (even those that claim to reject Maoism). This is why I think studying Maoist China is hugely important, because even if the ideology has faded, the system from that time is still broadly in place. Works like Politics in Mao's Court are great introductions to this topic, in my opinion. I'd go further: it's useful to study pre-modern Chinese imperial history as well. We can gain valuable insights into Chinese political culture and even produce some normative (if not case-specific) conclusions. An interesting note is that while Chinese state censorship isn't usually as extreme as in other communist countries, a book about the last Ming emperor, the Chongzhen emperor (《崇祯：勤政的亡国君》), was recently pulled from shelves for political reasons. The book's subheading was "Making mistakes one after another, the more 'diligently' you govern, the more your country will perish"-does that sound familiar? If the censors are concerned, perhaps it's worth investigating further. A More Rigorous Theory of Power: It's a simplistic and naive analysis to just say, "Xi Jinping is number one, Xi Jinping is the supreme leader," and so on. We need to delve deeper: what authority does he actually wield (both within and outside the formal system), and what type of authority does he have? A solid framework for such an analysis is Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority: Charismatic authority (character, heroism, leadership, religious) Traditional authority (patriarchs, patrimonialism, feudalism) Rational-legal authority (modern law and state, bureaucracy) Obviously, Xi's power stems from a combination of these (they are rarely pure), but examining the nature of his authority allows us to analyze the different channels through which he exerts influence. I'd argue that he relies heavily on charismatic authority, especially since he's appointed many of his allies to the Central Committee. China's other leader, Li Qiang, the Premier of the State Council, represents a more bureaucratic authority. He is notionally at the top of the system, but he cannot extricate himself from its demands. These different forms of extreme power can coexist, but the tensions between them are often what lead to historical events. To briefly synthesize the two points (Historicism and Types of Power), one way to think about the current setup of Chinese politics is through the analogy of an Emperor and a Grand Secretary (similar to the General Secretary and Premier). Essentially, the Emperor is the supreme sovereign. Their name is synonymous with the era in which they reign, and they have seemingly unchecked authority. However, they are somewhat removed from the actual center of bureaucratic power. The Grand Secretary, on the other hand, is in charge of running the day-to-day operations and often does much more of the real work, while the Emperor remains in a more ceremonial role. The Grand Secretary is responsible for ensuring good governance, but must also be careful not to displease the sovereign-a tall order indeed. The advantage of such a model is that it allows us to look back at historical conditions that were somewhat similar and use that perspective to evaluate the present. Thanks for reading my rambling comment. Hope you have a nice day!
I bought Kevin Rudd's book and enjoy because he is making Xi JinpIng ideology accessible, explaining it. Kevin it by no means endorsing this ideology, but he id dissecting it and explaining it. Kevin also makes clear in the introduction that he does NOT believe in the collective leadership concept and thinks that Xi pulling the strings ideologically.
Mythical algorithm pull; I’m an undergraduate Poli-Sci History Dual Major with a flowering (albeit Dilletantish) interest in Chinese modernity and politics! Always happy to see more academic voices on the platform; especially in my wheelhouse
Your point regarding choosing a successor and the transfer of power is very insightful and something I haven’t thought of before. Do you see any difference between emerging dictators and monarchies? Could the clearer rules of the transfer of power in a monarchy be a point that puts them above dictators?
Pure monarchies have their own problems. When you're born with power, there is very little incentive for self-restraint. I think most countries discarded it for a reason.
A bit off topic but as someone who has lived in China and studied communism, do you consider China to still be a communist country, and do you believe its citizens and government carry this belief, and do policymakers' decision follow communist teachings to some degree, and are citizens required to be taught communism? Are there certain actions citizens can not due, due to communism?
It's hard to define a "communist country". No country ever really implemented what Marx envisioned. Of course, he was too vague anyway. But I'm sure mass executions and labor camps were not what he had in mind. If communism is narrowly defined as "not allowing private capital", then no, China is in no way communist any more.
For someone who has lived in China and “studied” communism, you seem quite naive. China (the PRC version) has never been communist, nor socialist. It’s a dictatorship and/or authoritarian, depends on who was the president and chairman. Btw, neither was USSR a communist country. They have always been “communist” in name only.
@@forbeginnersandbeyond6089 you talk a lot for someone incapable of basic understanding, he referred to the channel owner as "someone who lived in china and studied communism"
@@forbeginnersandbeyond6089the difference is that their system is currently very efficient, outcompeting the rest of the world, by a huge margin. And there isn't much you can do about it, since their media control prevent media infiltration.
The ancient "Heaven's Mandate" is still in vogue. So do not fret. If the masses are unsatisfied, dictators, whether solo or collective, all will be swept away. Go ask the great Ying Zhao Zheng嬴赵政.
I am not too sure what you try to deliver, but all regimes should be collective power, no one regime can exist without the surrounding people supporting them.
That's nice in theory but we know many times regimes collapse because the guy keeping everything together croaked. The "collective" went up in smoke and was replaced by instant plotting and infighting.
Making a cut between every single sentence creates a jarring, choppy effect, making this video essentially unwatchable. Why not let the man speak in a normal manner?
Many interesting thoughts in this video. The dictator with centralized power and no clear successor applies to both Xi and Putin. I always thought there was a difference in the succession between them due to the CCP's ubiquity, but I think you ripped the band-aid off that point of view in this video. I don't view Xi as brilliant. His handling of the economy provides proof of that. His political skills are brilliant, though. So far as the CCP's rise, there weren't any guys in white hats during the Revolution. I think the people had seen what the government had to offer. Mao was unknown and had lots of bright, shiney new promises.
Chen Jinping and Lu Jianwang - 2 people arrested recently in the USA for illegally working to identify pro-democracy chinese people in the US Yes it is absolutely dangerous for them.
Great video, as always. I remember you sharing photos of Chinese worker dormitories on social media, to show the side of China that isn't usually shown on TV. Is it possible that, in the future, you can make videos about the side of China, that isn't often shown publically (If you haven't already)? I think this is important, because today China is seen by many doubters of democracy as the gold standard of why dictatorships are ok and democracy is bad. Obviously your content is about much more than just China, but I do think your voice is of great importance, since you're actually a Chinese dissenter who knows his stuff about political science.
Old pictures of dormitories? Are you talking about Hong Kong? If you’re basing your view of an entire country off of one picture alone then a person from the other side can use president hoover’s tent cities as an example to paint America bad. How did America treat the Chinese railroad workers in the past? Pretty terrible. You see, thats a part of America you never care or heard about.
@@shinbi6009 1.) I'm actually being the opposite of superficial, as I want to learn about the side of China that ISN'T commonly shown, from someone who has actually lived there and has scientific expertise in regards to politics. Just because it's not positive, doesn't mean it should be a taboo. 2.) What America did to Chinese immigrants, as well as the Chinese Exclusion act are all commonly known. And even if not, these pieces of information are not censored and you are allowed to research and openly criticize these actions. Try that in China with say, what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989. So your Whataboutism doesn't really work here.
@@shinbi6009 1.) I'm actually being the opposite of superficial, as I want to learn about the side of China that ISN'T commonly shown, from someone who has actually lived there and has scientific expertise in regards to politics. Just because it's not positive, doesn't mean it should be a taboo. 2.) What America did to Chinese immigrants, as well as the Chinese Exclusion act are all commonly known. And even if not, these pieces of information are not censored and you are allowed to research and openly criticize these actions. Try that in China with say, what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989. So your Whataboutism doesn't really work here.
@@shinbi6009 1.) I'm actually being the opposite of superficial, as I want to learn about the side of China that ISN'T commonly shown, from someone who has actually lived there and has scientific expertise in regards to politics. Just because it's not positive, doesn't mean it should be a taboo. 2.) What America did to Chinese immigrants, as well as the Chinese Exclusion act are all commonly known. And even if not, these pieces of information are not censored and you are allowed to research and openly criticize these actions. Try that in China with say, what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989. So your Whataboutism doesn't really work here.
A novice accounting way of describing a tumultuous birth of a great nation that can shape a new and equitable.democractic and environment sensitive new old order, where every nation big or small have ewual say in self development.
New ideas there but It still is collective, nothing changed at all. xi isn't making every decision he isn't leading just any country, it's superpower and heis too old for this
North Korea, yes it is dictatorship but not China, leader is elected in the Party, where the leader selected is based on meritocracy! That is why today China is the most powerful in economy, military and infrastructure 😊
You're welcome to use alternative definitions, but it doesn't negate any point I make in the video. Also, the word "elect" normally implies having more than one candidates. The presidential and General Party Sec "ballots" always only had one candidate.
1) The communists would not have been harmed if the other side would have won. 2) Trump and the Republicans are not a cult, but a political party with valid policy 3) You are pretty much wrong on many of the points you make so casually. It makes me wonder about your other points, made about stuff I don't know anything about ....
Trump and the current Republicans are indeed a cult, backing a felon who has committed treason and insurrection and liable for sexual assault, and to make things even better: have no policy whatsoever, but a million culture war vagueries that even MAGA does not understand where it lands, and is fighting amongst themselves before Trump even becomes president. Meanwhile, democrats (with the exception of older Republicans - depending how far you're going back - like Teddy Roosevelt, or Dwight Eisenhower whom leaned a lot more liberal) have had to consistently clean MAGA Republicans making a mess of the fucking economy, and NEVER taking accountability for it. I guess that's behavior you'd expect from unamerican traitor-supporting nutjobs?
You’ve made the first two points as though they are factual. They’re not, they’re your opinions. Huey is entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to yours 👍
@@anthonyweston630 I hear you, son. You're right - I have a view on these that differs from his. But, he should make those points and also back them up with some logical basis. I'm not the one making a youtube video; this presenter is just spouting off, making a point a minute, without saying WHY what he says is true.
1) The definition of that word doesn't affect any points I made in the video. Please check it out. 2) Terminologies are simply a set of agreements by the academic community. Every political science dataset counts China as a dictatorship. You're certainly welcome to use other definitions, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
@@DrHueyLi well, I google it for you "A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by one leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations." So， which parts of Chinese government perform in this way?
Thank you for moving to youtube. Love your content
Another absolute banger, Dr. Li! Super interesting and well presented as always! The party officials smile on you.
i can't listen to swearing
Love your insights, I’ve learned so much-thank you for posting!
Interesting breakdown. Also I love the painting behind you.
Just found this channel and I'm grateful for it.
Love you dr. huey, this is awesome please continue
I love your channel name Dr Li
great video, keep it up :) I love your insight!
this was so good and smart take wish you make more videos explaining complicated stuff like this
I like your longer form videos. There is something in the youtube algorithm that makes 20-30 minutes a valuable time period for the attention span of certain people. I'm not sure how it works because I'm not a youtuber, but I have heard other youtubers say that you can game the system.
Another valuable segment length are the really short 5-20 second tiktok type of videos. Again, I don't know what the advantage is or how it works on the algorithm.
Thank! That's a lot of digest. In general, I'm not confident enough to make any predictions or general theories about the Xi admin (or Putin, or Kim). The problem with one-man dictatorships is that they're arbitrary. Things can change based on what's going on in one person's head. All I can predict is that they'll all mess up at some point.
Great video as usual, I hope you don't mind if I share some unstructured thoughts.
It's unfortunately the case that many Western "China watchers" (especially those who haven't spent a long time in China) are often too credulous and even gullible when it comes to believing Chinese propaganda. The concept of collective leadership is a good example: 集体领导体制 is a propaganda phrase that gained prominence during the Hu-Wen era, but some Sinologists took it as a kind of sacred model.
Another example that comes to mind is Kevin Rudd (my country's former leader) writing a whole book on Xi Jinping's "Marxist-Leninist ideology," which essentially just regurgitates the regime's propaganda without critically analyzing it. It's not a genuine attempt to form an independent theory about Chinese political economy in the 21st century.
I think the most interesting point you made in the video was about how the knowledge of "factions" became entirely useless after Xi's ascension. This is a crucial point, right? If the underlying assumptions of your model are wrong, then any knowledge derived from it is going to be useless.
So, how should people approach Chinese politics "the right way"? In my humble opinion, there are two essential elements for a productive discourse on Chinese politics.
A Historical Approach:
The reason why social scientists get so many things, like collective leadership, wrong is quite simple. It's not that they're worse at "science" than other types of scientists, but rather that they lack experimental evidence and have to make generalizations based on very limited information. There is no perfect solution to this issue, but I think it makes sense to 以史为鉴-use history as a mirror. This can give us a better understanding not just of new developments, but also of historical contingency. After all, nothing comes from nothing; every system relies on its antecedents (even those that claim to reject Maoism). This is why I think studying Maoist China is hugely important, because even if the ideology has faded, the system from that time is still broadly in place. Works like Politics in Mao's Court are great introductions to this topic, in my opinion.
I'd go further: it's useful to study pre-modern Chinese imperial history as well. We can gain valuable insights into Chinese political culture and even produce some normative (if not case-specific) conclusions.
An interesting note is that while Chinese state censorship isn't usually as extreme as in other communist countries, a book about the last Ming emperor, the Chongzhen emperor (《崇祯：勤政的亡国君》), was recently pulled from shelves for political reasons. The book's subheading was "Making mistakes one after another, the more 'diligently' you govern, the more your country will perish"-does that sound familiar? If the censors are concerned, perhaps it's worth investigating further.
A More Rigorous Theory of Power:
It's a simplistic and naive analysis to just say, "Xi Jinping is number one, Xi Jinping is the supreme leader," and so on. We need to delve deeper: what authority does he actually wield (both within and outside the formal system), and what type of authority does he have? A solid framework for such an analysis is Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority:
Charismatic authority (character, heroism, leadership, religious)
Traditional authority (patriarchs, patrimonialism, feudalism)
Rational-legal authority (modern law and state, bureaucracy)
Obviously, Xi's power stems from a combination of these (they are rarely pure), but examining the nature of his authority allows us to analyze the different channels through which he exerts influence. I'd argue that he relies heavily on charismatic authority, especially since he's appointed many of his allies to the Central Committee.
China's other leader, Li Qiang, the Premier of the State Council, represents a more bureaucratic authority. He is notionally at the top of the system, but he cannot extricate himself from its demands.
These different forms of extreme power can coexist, but the tensions between them are often what lead to historical events.
To briefly synthesize the two points (Historicism and Types of Power), one way to think about the current setup of Chinese politics is through the analogy of an Emperor and a Grand Secretary (similar to the General Secretary and Premier). Essentially, the Emperor is the supreme sovereign. Their name is synonymous with the era in which they reign, and they have seemingly unchecked authority. However, they are somewhat removed from the actual center of bureaucratic power. The Grand Secretary, on the other hand, is in charge of running the day-to-day operations and often does much more of the real work, while the Emperor remains in a more ceremonial role. The Grand Secretary is responsible for ensuring good governance, but must also be careful not to displease the sovereign-a tall order indeed. The advantage of such a model is that it allows us to look back at historical conditions that were somewhat similar and use that perspective to evaluate the present.
Thanks for reading my rambling comment. Hope you have a nice day!
I bought Kevin Rudd's book and enjoy because he is making Xi JinpIng ideology accessible, explaining it. Kevin it by no means endorsing this ideology, but he id dissecting it and explaining it. Kevin also makes clear in the introduction that he does NOT believe in the collective leadership concept and thinks that Xi pulling the strings ideologically.
Great video....man
Enjoy your vids :)
Mythical algorithm pull; I’m an undergraduate Poli-Sci History Dual Major with a flowering (albeit Dilletantish) interest in Chinese modernity and politics! Always happy to see more academic voices on the platform; especially in my wheelhouse
pls look up: sam vaknin, hg tudor to learn how to recognize narcissists. you know them & are over represented in politics
channels: serpentza, laowhy86 speak truth about china
Your point regarding choosing a successor and the transfer of power is very insightful and something I haven’t thought of before.
Do you see any difference between emerging dictators and monarchies? Could the clearer rules of the transfer of power in a monarchy be a point that puts them above dictators?
Pure monarchies have their own problems. When you're born with power, there is very little incentive for self-restraint. I think most countries discarded it for a reason.
👏🙂
Very interesting
Interesting video, I like your shirt as well!
3:17 Reminded me of Shang Yang, a legalist official in Qin Dynasty.
A bit off topic but as someone who has lived in China and studied communism, do you consider China to still be a communist country, and do you believe its citizens and government carry this belief, and do policymakers' decision follow communist teachings to some degree, and are citizens required to be taught communism? Are there certain actions citizens can not due, due to communism?
It's hard to define a "communist country". No country ever really implemented what Marx envisioned. Of course, he was too vague anyway. But I'm sure mass executions and labor camps were not what he had in mind.
If communism is narrowly defined as "not allowing private capital", then no, China is in no way communist any more.
For someone who has lived in China and “studied” communism, you seem quite naive. China (the PRC version) has never been communist, nor socialist. It’s a dictatorship and/or authoritarian, depends on who was the president and chairman. Btw, neither was USSR a communist country. They have always been “communist” in name only.
@@forbeginnersandbeyond6089 you talk a lot for someone incapable of basic understanding, he referred to the channel owner as "someone who lived in china and studied communism"
@@forbeginnersandbeyond6089the difference is that their system is currently very efficient, outcompeting the rest of the world, by a huge margin. And there isn't much you can do about it, since their media control prevent media infiltration.
@@forbeginnersandbeyond6089 Similarly, there has never been a truly "capitalist" country. They're all capitalist in name only.
Things are working out so why worry
The ancient "Heaven's Mandate" is still in vogue. So do not fret. If the masses are unsatisfied, dictators, whether solo or collective, all will be swept away. Go ask the great Ying Zhao Zheng嬴赵政.
The layman will get this for sure
"I'll risk my life for clicks."....and “the next leader will be when AI takes over” …classic.
Subbed.
Are there infinitely many dynamic equilibria moving from competitive elections to lifelong dictatorship?
Curious what will happen when Xi dies. There is no factions anymore, just personal appointees of Xi.
Post-long-ruler transitions are famously hard to predict.
Which books were you forced to read as a kid?
Not the whole books. But dozens of individual articles from Mao's Selected Works were included in our K-12 textbooks. We had to recite some parts too.
@@DrHueyLi thanks
Shirt is rad
I am not too sure what you try to deliver, but all regimes should be collective power, no one regime can exist without the surrounding people supporting them.
That's nice in theory but we know many times regimes collapse because the guy keeping everything together croaked. The "collective" went up in smoke and was replaced by instant plotting and infighting.
Making a cut between every single sentence creates a jarring, choppy effect, making this video essentially unwatchable. Why not let the man speak in a normal manner?
Many interesting thoughts in this video. The dictator with centralized power and no clear successor applies to both Xi and Putin. I always thought there was a difference in the succession between them due to the CCP's ubiquity, but I think you ripped the band-aid off that point of view in this video.
I don't view Xi as brilliant. His handling of the economy provides proof of that. His political skills are brilliant, though.
So far as the CCP's rise, there weren't any guys in white hats during the Revolution. I think the people had seen what the government had to offer. Mao was unknown and had lots of bright, shiney new promises.
There was no plan and it just sorta worked out that way.
😁😁😁 🇨🇳 today is NOT 🇨🇳 of yesterday. ✌️✌️✌️
Risking your life??? If making a video like this is risking your life, then all the anti China vloggers on TH-cam would be dead already, haha.
there are bilion of china bad videos on youtube
Chen Jinping and Lu Jianwang - 2 people arrested recently in the USA for illegally working to identify pro-democracy chinese people in the US
Yes it is absolutely dangerous for them.
Great video, as always.
I remember you sharing photos of Chinese worker dormitories on social media, to show the side of China that isn't usually shown on TV.
Is it possible that, in the future, you can make videos about the side of China, that isn't often shown publically (If you haven't already)?
I think this is important, because today China is seen by many doubters of democracy as the gold standard of why dictatorships are ok and democracy is bad.
Obviously your content is about much more than just China, but I do think your voice is of great importance, since you're actually a Chinese dissenter who knows his stuff about political science.
Old pictures of dormitories? Are you talking about Hong Kong? If you’re basing your view of an entire country off of one picture alone then a person from the other side can use president hoover’s tent cities as an example to paint America bad. How did America treat the Chinese railroad workers in the past? Pretty terrible. You see, thats a part of America you never care or heard about.
@@shinbi6009
1.) I'm actually being the opposite of superficial, as I want to learn about the side of China that ISN'T commonly shown, from someone who has actually lived there and has scientific expertise in regards to politics.
Just because it's not positive, doesn't mean it should be a taboo.
2.) What America did to Chinese immigrants, as well as the Chinese Exclusion act are all commonly known. And even if not, these pieces of information are not censored and you are allowed to research and openly criticize these actions. Try that in China with say, what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
So your Whataboutism doesn't really work here.
@@shinbi6009
1.) I'm actually being the opposite of superficial, as I want to learn about the side of China that ISN'T commonly shown, from someone who has actually lived there and has scientific expertise in regards to politics.
Just because it's not positive, doesn't mean it should be a taboo.
2.) What America did to Chinese immigrants, as well as the Chinese Exclusion act are all commonly known. And even if not, these pieces of information are not censored and you are allowed to research and openly criticize these actions. Try that in China with say, what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
So your Whataboutism doesn't really work here.
You want to see the shitty parts of a country to corroborate your pre existing views
@@shinbi6009
1.) I'm actually being the opposite of superficial, as I want to learn about the side of China that ISN'T commonly shown, from someone who has actually lived there and has scientific expertise in regards to politics.
Just because it's not positive, doesn't mean it should be a taboo.
2.) What America did to Chinese immigrants, as well as the Chinese Exclusion act are all commonly known. And even if not, these pieces of information are not censored and you are allowed to research and openly criticize these actions. Try that in China with say, what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
So your Whataboutism doesn't really work here.
A novice accounting way of describing a tumultuous birth of a great nation that can shape a new and equitable.democractic and environment sensitive new old order, where every nation big or small have ewual say in self development.
When you concentrate all industries of the world, there's absolutely no way you can create an 'equitable' and 'sensitive' world order.
2:10 I guessed you never watched any of those Kamala Harris interviews or speeches 😂
New ideas there but It still is collective, nothing changed at all. xi isn't making every decision he isn't leading just any country, it's superpower and heis too old for this
So a company with a CEO is technically a co-op because there's upper and middle management under him/her.
Who is too old Xi. I think is doing great
North Korea, yes it is dictatorship but not China, leader is elected in the Party, where the leader selected is based on meritocracy! That is why today China is the most powerful in economy, military and infrastructure 😊
North Korea is practically a Monarchy.
You're welcome to use alternative definitions, but it doesn't negate any point I make in the video. Also, the word "elect" normally implies having more than one candidates. The presidential and General Party Sec "ballots" always only had one candidate.
@DrHueyLi nope you are wrong they are more one candidate for highest Party members to select by voting.
@@cywong9101 Lol who were the other candidates that lost?
China isn't as powerful militarily as the USA, and its economy is smaller. That's just a fact
1) The communists would not have been harmed if the other side would have won.
2) Trump and the Republicans are not a cult, but a political party with valid policy
3) You are pretty much wrong on many of the points you make so casually. It makes me wonder about your other points, made about stuff I don't know anything about ....
Trump and the current Republicans are indeed a cult, backing a felon who has committed treason and insurrection and liable for sexual assault, and to make things even better: have no policy whatsoever, but a million culture war vagueries that even MAGA does not understand where it lands, and is fighting amongst themselves before Trump even becomes president.
Meanwhile, democrats (with the exception of older Republicans - depending how far you're going back - like Teddy Roosevelt, or Dwight Eisenhower whom leaned a lot more liberal) have had to consistently clean MAGA Republicans making a mess of the fucking economy, and NEVER taking accountability for it. I guess that's behavior you'd expect from unamerican traitor-supporting nutjobs?
You’ve made the first two points as though they are factual. They’re not, they’re your opinions. Huey is entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to yours 👍
@@anthonyweston630 I hear you, son. You're right - I have a view on these that differs from his. But, he should make those points and also back them up with some logical basis. I'm not the one making a youtube video; this presenter is just spouting off, making a point a minute, without saying WHY what he says is true.
Chiang kai shek was a ruthless dictator. Of course he would have harmed the communists.
seems you don't fully know what is dictatorship, or you don't know about China, or you don't what to know.
1) The definition of that word doesn't affect any points I made in the video. Please check it out. 2) Terminologies are simply a set of agreements by the academic community. Every political science dataset counts China as a dictatorship. You're certainly welcome to use other definitions, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
@@DrHueyLi you can study the current capitalist dictatorship in the Western world.
@@DrHueyLi well, I google it for you "A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by one leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations." So， which parts of Chinese government perform in this way?
@@MrDnong a one party state is a dictatorship.
@@MrDnongPretry much nailed it, Xi Jinping clearly fits the bill. An all powerful leader without term limit that tolerates no oposition of any kind.
Dumb bullshirt video fake video 😢😮😅
bot
chines bot