Sedan

You aren't the first person unable to translate Russian videos using subtitles; I suspect you are being restricted.

In that video, Platoshkin discussed various forms of socialism—specifically, socialism as it existed in China, the USSR, Yugoslavia, and similar places. I didn't provide you with a full translation of that video; rather, I gave you a brief, bullet-point summary of Platoshkin's views regarding China.

I did this so you would understand that I am not the only idealist out there—there are others, too. These are people who remember the USSR and, through the lens of their own subjective worldview, compare it with what is happening today. There are a great many such people here, Comrade. They are a diverse bunch—some smart, some foolish; some cheerful, some somber—but they are united by one thing: they were born in the USSR.

Nowadays in Russia, it has become fashionable to travel to North Korea—solely for the sake of experiencing the USSR once again. These people aren't concerned with Marxist economics; they simply want to return to the USSR—which is precisely why they don't go to China in search of that experience.

Moreover, North Korea is the only country that has stood up in Russia's defense. In North Korea, Russians are held in high regard and are still considered friends to this day.

You made a very astute observation: for a Soviet person, a lack of "soul" is utterly unacceptable. That, Comrade, is a dogma.

Did you see a recent interview with Karaganov where he basically says that the west does not understand what nuclear deterrence is, and that his view is that Russia will eventually end up striking a NATO country, first conventionally, and then if the message doesn’t get through then using a limited nuclear strike as a demonstration. It seems that’s where we’re headed at this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gd5jdl36cg

I actually got banned from Reddit for the second time for saying exactly this while replying to you. The only difference was that I was talking about a non-nuclear strike. And I added that Russia needed to carry this out as quickly as possible—otherwise, things would only get worse down the road.

As you can see for yourself, time has passed, and a simple strike is no longer enough to resolve the situation.

Karaganov is close to Putin; when he speaks, it isn't just an interview—it is a direct message to the West, delivered through Western influencers, intended specifically for people like you to see.

This is an information game, playing out against the backdrop of Russia recently beginning to test captured Western weaponry. The underlying premise is that the West will eventually come to its senses, because things have already gone much too far. Those drone incursions deep into Russian territory pose a genuine threat to Russia—a real threat, regardless of what is happening on the front lines. Ukraine is already capable of launching a thousand drones a day... and that number is only going to rise.

Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.

One does not seek good when one already has it.

I am referring to Stalin’s decision to abolish the NEP, viewing it as a poison for a socialist society.

When the NEP first emerged, the common people were starving—literally swelling up from hunger—while the "NEPmen" sat in restaurants, feasting on black caviar and washing it down with Abrau-Durso champagne.

The people loathed the NEPmen; they regarded them as a hostile class.

Do you understand that the NEP represents an abyss between private enterprise and the people—both in a social and a material sense? As a temporary measure, the NEP is, of course, necessary in certain specific situations; however, if allowed to drag on, things can go so far that there is simply no turning back.

That Platoskin fellow I mentioned yesterday—well, in the wake of Putin’s crackdown, he’s had a change of heart about staging a revolution... ))) Now he wants to do everything legally, through the electoral process. Furthermore, under his proposed model of socialism, he intends to retain private business ownership. It would certainly be fascinating to see how he manages to pull that off...

"Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth."

A real roller coaster... )))

It seems to me that the biggest disaster was when Mao had all the sparrows killed off.

In case you didn't know—and whatever a snake Khrushchev might have been—he actually sent trainloads of sparrows to China once Mao realized that he had been a bit too hasty in getting rid of them.

Mao wanted war constantly. He was forever pushing the countries of the Socialist Bloc toward it. Castro and Czechoslovakia were the most outraged by this. Mao was extremely belligerent; he was constantly provoking the USSR.

It was strange to observe: on one hand, there was the practically boundless aid being provided to China, yet on the other—manifestations of outright hostility.

In the USSR during the 1970s, China was portrayed in a rather unfavorable light on television—specifically in the wake of the Damansky Island conflict and other events. Brezhnev feared that China might launch a nuclear strike. All forces were placed on combat alert, and troops were massed along the borders. Thank God, the situation was ultimately resolved peacefully. It was at Damansky Island that the BM-21 "Grad" multiple rocket launch systems were deployed for the first time—a move that, in fact, played the decisive role.

And take a look at the graph: leading up to the Damansky Island incident, China was at its peak; immediately afterward, however, it went into a sharp nosedive.

"they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought."

Everything produced in the 1930s and thereafter was a copy of Western designs. Why bother developing original technology? They simply bought the product in the West and copied it.

Incidentally, there is a story relevant to this point: Khrushchev once went to Sweden on a state visit, where he saw an electric shaver for the first time—and was presented with one as a gift. He was utterly astonished and took a real liking to it. As soon as he returned to the USSR, he ordered that an identical one be manufactured—only domestically produced. His staff asked him, "How?" He replied, "However you see fit!"

The engineers dismantled the device down to the last screw, copied it, and thus the first electric shaver in the USSR was born at the FED factory. This factory holds a special place in my heart; it adjoins the aircraft plant where my mother used to work.

FED is an acronym standing for Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky.

Now, regarding "socialism with a Russian twist": on one occasion, Lenin ordered Dzerzhinsky to put an end to the problem of homelessness among children. Dzerzhinsky was a monumental figure; he was entrusted with the most complex and daunting tasks (Beria, in essence, was much the same).

Dzerzhinsky traveled to Kharkiv, rounded up all the homeless children... took them out to a ravine, and had them shot! ...)))) That’s just a joke, of course...

In reality, the first labor colony for homeless children in the USSR was established. A precision electronics factory was built on the grounds of this colony, where the homeless children both worked and studied. Ultimately, the people who emerged from that institution went on to become scientists and cosmonauts... Since then, the factory has borne the name FED—though it has now been bombed by the Russians. However, had the Ukrainians realized what the acronym FED actually stood for, they would have renamed the factory long ago...))))

As for the goods that were supposedly meant to "displace" Western products in the global market: under socialism, there is no such thing as competition—there is only "socialist emulation." Goods manufactured in the USSR could be seen en masse throughout the countries of the Socialist Bloc. They should have first ensured they had everything they needed themselves—so that, perhaps, they could compete later on.

I do not care for the “soul”

That is what sets you apart from a Russian. It sounds stupid, but it’s true.

His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.

Note that in both the first and the second case, it all began with contact with the United States. Leprosy—if one may put it that way.

Note that in both the first and second instances, it all began with contact with the United States—a sort of leprosy, if you will.

Those reforms were dictated by the West—roughly speaking. The U.S. led both men by the nose... and subsequently began leading Putin by the nose as well. Sooner or later, this had to come to an end—yet it hasn't. Now we have the "Spirit of Anchorage" all over again; it is truly laughable to watch.

It's a shame, I stumbled across it by accident and experienced déjà vu. as if it were a continuation of our conversation

I couldn't find the transcript of this video.

I can summarize his views.

Nikolai Platoshkin has an ambivalent view of modern China: while acknowledging its remarkable economic successes, he criticizes the country's departure from classical Marxism and expresses concerns about Beijing's overly pragmatic foreign policy toward Russia. The politician's main theses on China: "Special" socialism: The politician notes that the Chinese Communist Party retains power and state planning, but within the country, hard-line capitalism prevails, with colossal social stratification and private property. Foreign policy pragmatism: The expert warns that Beijing primarily protects its economic interests and fears large-scale Western sanctions, which is why it acts with an eye on the United States and may limit cooperation with Russia. Historical parallels: Platoshkin criticizes some of Deng Xiaoping's decisions and China's current course, believing that in terms of social protection and equality, China is inferior to the standards established under Mao Zedong.

I agree with Lenin, of course... )))

Here, I found this especially for you. Just don't scold me, please, it's not me speaking.

I found a video of that Russian communist whose book, only in translation, some guy here presented to me as an argument.

Therefore, you should understand this man the same way.

This is Platoshkin, whom Putin recently almost sent to prison because he called for revolution. He miraculously got off with a suspended sentence.

He's a professor, a graduate of Moscow State University, who worked as a diplomat back in the USSR.

Turn on English subtitles. You've never heard such an opinion... from "Eastern Communists"... )))

He is one of the most ardent communists currently existing in Russia.

https://youtu.be/du8jt5pSFR0

And if you hadn’t been spreading bullshit I wouldn’t have felt the need to speak harshly.

The thing is, I've heard this from a Chinese person many times on Reddit, and not only from a Chinese person. For some reason, I continue to act like an idiot.

And I don't really like it, Comrade, that you sometimes don't answer questions.

A janitor's salary in Shanghai is $80-$100 per month. A Chinese farmer/worker without a residence permit in Shanghai earns $200-$400.

Please correct me.

Maybe we can talk again when you decide to educate yourself before speaking.

As you wish

As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world.

You know I disagree... )))

What's wrong with Stalin's industrialization in the 1930s? Which Mao wanted to replicate with abandon. Don't you think Mao's thinking back then, ardently, is similar to mine now? That is, Mao wanted to build the USSR in China.

I think Stalin's "Great Leap Forward" is much more impressive than the "Great Leap Forward"... I'll Google it now.

Mao Zedong (September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959) Liu Shaoqi (April 27, 1959 – October 31, 1968) Dong Biwu (Acting Chairman from October 31, 1968 – January 17, 1975) From 1975 to 1982, the position was abolished, and the functions of head of state were performed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

Li Xiannian (June 18, 1983 – April 8, 1988) Yang Shangkun (April 8, 1988 – March 27, 1993) Jiang Zemin (March 27, 1993 – March 15, 2003) Hu Jintao (March 15, 2003 – March 14, 2013) Xi Jinping (March 14, 2013 to present)

In ten years, Stalin transformed a largely agrarian country into a power capable of fighting the EU on equal terms, single-handedly, and ultimately bringing them to their knees.

Comrade, honestly, how can you even compare these two?

"snake Khrushchev"

Yes, he discredited Stalin, to the delight of the West, but he did so for careerist and ambitious reasons. But he was a hardened and devoted Soviet communist. It wasn't that he wanted the New Economic Policy (NEP)—on the contrary, he abolished the last bastion of private enterprise in the USSR. He abolished Stalin's artels, a grave mistake when light industry slumped, followed by shortages, and, as a consequence, the trade mafia emerged. Khrushchev should have developed the artels, not stifled them. Khrushchev's second mistake was becoming hooked on oil, a habit Russia still can't shake.

But he cared about the people; under him, the process of mass construction of free housing for the proletariat, the so-called "Khrushchev-era buildings," began.

So what if they made a deal with the western devil?

The main thing is that the soul remains untouched.

The soviets did so too during the NEP

Capitalism is a transitional stage from feudalism to socialism. Russia didn't have capitalism at that time, just like China didn't. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was improvised capitalism. It was necessary because the country was on the brink of survival. And it really boosted the economy. But Stalin, at some point, said "Stop!" And he didn't do it without reason. Industrialization requires a huge amount of resources and labor. The NEP is a bunch of small businessmen. Who will build these factories under the NEP? Who will organize this construction? 80% of the population are peasants, who will certainly remain on the land, will plow the land, and sell their harvest as private farmers. How can they be lured to the city? No one raped the peasants back then; they could easily run away. How can we offer them better conditions than if they remained in the villages? Tens of millions need to be resettled. Don't forget that industrialization was carried out by peasants with their own hands, as was the case in China.

As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more.

I've described the main points above.

To develop light industry, Stalin organized artels.

Note:

"Under I.V. Stalin, artels (production cooperatives) in the USSR were a vital part of the economy. They produced over 30,000 different products, supplying the market with essential goods—from food to electronics. By 1953, artels produced approximately 40% of all furniture and 35% of knitwear in the country."

No problem, Comrade! Joseph Vissarionovich has thought of everything!

Products of the artel

During the war

Everyone in the cooperative has equal rights and receives the same salary. The director is elected annually from among the cooperative members, by the cooperative itself.

The team is small, 10 people...

As for “western Marxism

I didn't know this, I said the phrase on my own.

“stupid materialism,” as you called it

It wasn't me who named it, Lenin named it.... ))))

as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism

Yes, you're probably right.

Thoughts of someone who hasn’t studied theory or China.

As someone who doesn't study theory, I think Chiang Kai-shek built Shanghai according to the Western model, with Western money. How much longer will you continue to build and develop it?

what anecdote/anecdotal evidence means

Google translates it as a joke.

Cities obviously develop faster than rural areas.

If you're talking about urbanization, I know. In 1930, peasants made up 80% of the USSR's population. The same situation was in China. What development are you talking about? If a city is developing, then peasants need to be resettled from the villages to the city so they can become workers.

A city can't develop without people.

But you can't resettle everyone; some will stay.

If only you could have seen mine and our neighbouring villages

Yes, that's right, that video said that the rich regions are doing well, I didn't argue with you about that.

You wouldn’t be spreading all of this bullshit about rural people not seeing any benefits

If you hadn't spoken so harshly to me, I probably would have kept quiet, Comrade.

OK. You're from Shanghai or thereabouts. Please tell me, how much does a Chinese peasant who came to Shanghai without a residence permit earn per month?

How much does a janitor in Shanghai, who is a Chinese peasant, earn?

I'd be happy to believe you, but I once spoke with a resident of St. Petersburg who has no idea how people live beyond the Urals. When it comes to national pride, people try to hide their shortcomings, especially if you're a staunch Chinese communist. The USSR also hid a lot, even from its own citizens. So your information isn't objective to me, sorry, Comrade.

Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.

Here I would like to summarize our discussion.

See:

Doubt within doubt is a key dialectical principle, signifying the transition from simple skepticism to critical self-knowledge, where the instrument of verification itself becomes the object of verification.

Skepticism is the highest form of empiricism.

Dialectics is the highest form of skepticism.

Therefore, it can be said that dialectic is the highest form of empiricism.

This is when the mind does not rest on its laurels, but continues to dismantle dogmas. This process is continuous and does not allow for relaxation.

Russian interpretation

I translated

"Anekdot is a genre of urban folklore: a short, funny, and self-contained story. It usually builds on an unexpected and witty punchline at the very end, poking fun at human foibles, stereotypes, or current events."

Yes, I misunderstood you.

In fact, YouTube is teeming with these videos about China, but they're mostly positive.

But I just don't believe it when everything is good, so I look for the catch.

You can find anything in Russia. St. Petersburg and Moscow are just a showcase; go beyond the Urals and you'll feel sad. It's a region with incredible natural gas deposits, and some megacities rely on wood fires for heating.

I'm not even talking about the villages there.

I met a Chinese guy on Reddit, but he lives in the US. His father fled Mao's Cultural Revolution at the time. He probably has relatives in China and knows about it.

But at least he believes at least some of my jokes. I've been communicating with him for a year and a half now.