From the very beginning? How very is it? 😂

This ambassador seems to prefer dividing than improving relationship between the two countries. Considering China as threat and systematic revalvry is the wrong starting point where come out all the difficulties and no need to blame China. Hope one day we can have a wiser leader in US who can consider China as a partner.

His ambassador speaks with fork tongue.

I would never ever want the Chinese in China to have access to read the English language media, hear Biden's speeches and such, the people would be traumatized by the overt and subtle abuses with character assassinations of the people, culture, Maoism, everything - can't call this censorship or lack of freedom to what USA enjoys, many Americans oppose. I have heard more of Burns talk before, he is full of it, proof that there is something bigger controlling the State Dept. policies, not from the White House, not Congress, not the media.....very scary crappy stuff going on at a representative governance that do not truly reflect the nation's interest! Very upsetting!

This guy's bird brain is full of shit.

Actually, this guy is the worst ambassador from United States China. He not only didn’t build the bridge between the people of two country but he did just opposite try to make make trouble spread disturbance and still spread the lie to the outside world

He is NOT an ambassador but a trouble maker and bridge burner. China should just kick out this unwelcomed irritant.

Listen to the shit that comes out of Burns' mouth. He is such a conniving spy.

"We lied, we cheated, and we stole."

- Nicholas knows what are the problems but could not fix them, e.g., the US MSM continue to demonize and stigmatize the Chinese daily. He could have stop that first with the highest priority. - He claimed that the US has interest in climate change but it imposed 100% tariffs on the Chinese green electric cars. - He claimed that China is a partner but Yang Jiechi scolded Blinken at Alaska for talking down to China from a position of strength. To restricts China from doing business with Russia is an example of talking down from a position of strength and he does not realised that. He used the word "warned the Chinese govt" but he did not realised that is another example talking down from a position of strength. - The Chinese repeatedly said that they will stand by the UN charter and opposes unilateral actions, e.g., from the US, but he accused China of diminishing the power of the UN system. The world knows who crippled the WTO's appeal court, left WHO, did not ratify UNCLOS and so on. He should be more honest. - On Taiwan, he did not realised that his boss had committed several times that he will defend Taiwan militarily and at the same time declared that Taiwan is a part of China. Isn't that bluffing or dishonest? - In his conclusion, he hoped that a lot of young Americans will want to study Mandarin but he did not realised that his admin closed down Confucius institutes. It's sad to hear directly from top leaders like Nic who says one thing but does another thing just like what Xi said correctly about American leaders. It would really help if the US leaders could match their actions with their rhetoric.

27:30 Imho, there is no correlation between learning Mandarin Chinese (for common conversation or non-sensitive issue) and an individual's safety... Afterall, isn't it the pride of Mandarin Chinese itself ?! I mean if many foreigners learn the language (instead of learning other foreign languages) 🎉😊

This man is so delusional about China, so the Harward school also gets China so wrong as I am sure this guy with this dangerous mentality also contaminates the academic community in his uni.

Thank you 🎉

You have been proven wrong time and time again. Its time for u to stfu

The only way for China to prosper is get rid of Communism and become a Democratic state.

insightful. thanks for sharing!

南泥湾

今天六四了。

With updated subtitles?

The hard truth, but facts.

急に武満徹の「他人の顔」の曲が流れてびっくりした。（好きだから嬉しい）

The state is always heavily involved in economic development, even before the Industrial Revolution. All those European countries sent armies overseas to grab colonies. Exploitation of those colonies economically benefited the European countries, by providing raw materials and consumer goods (tea, coffee, sugar, cocoa) at low costs and captured markets. The US is probably the country with the least amount of government assistance to industries. But the US still had its own examples of government programs. The biggest case of American industrial policy was the interstate highway system. It favored steel, construction, automobiles, oil industries, at the expense of railroads. Semiconductors also benefited greatly from government efforts. In the late 1980s, Japanese dominated the semiconductor industry. The US government organized SemaTech. All significant American semiconductor companies were invited to join and pooled their technical resources. Finally, several East Asian countries made the transition from agricultural society to industrial society. All of them used top down government direction. The idea that the government needs to just stay out of the economy is just ideology.

Some Chinese scholars who had previously studied in the United States were surprised to find that the number of scholars currently researching China in American universities had significantly decreased. In this video, one scholar seemed to provide a reason. Professor Christensen from Columbia University: "One of our concerns was that the people who did do China's foreign relations and international relations were increasingly going into think tanks and consultancies...the problem was there was an increasing demand in the classroom for professors who taught the next generation of global citizens about the importance of China's rise and its place in the world..." If this is a widespread situation in the US, it might explain why some of the current US policies towards China appear unrealistic and even incomprehensible from a Chinese perspective. The U.S.'s understanding of China lags far behind China's understanding of the US. However, it must also be acknowledged that after three years of the pandemic, Chinese people's understanding of the US needs to be updated as well.

所谓对个人主义的启蒙，"做一个完整、自由的个人"，那是必须要有社会/制度基础或前提的，那就是私有制。只有在私有财产得到绝对保护的社会，人们才会表现出西方式的个人主义，即一切只对自己负责。从这一点出发，就不难理解五四启蒙的失败和其后中国的归属，因为儒家社会和共产社会在所有制上并没有什么本质的差别。

great leaders and economists should help eliminate the economic gap between rich countries and poor ones and get rid of the economic gap between rich people and poor people. .this guy just wanna the US to dominate the world.

this guy is also a so-called Anglo -Saxon guy who desires develop his own country's economy at the cost of the other poor nations. if china does not develop its technology and economy，how can it bring so many Chinese people out of poverty？ the US military has blocked the Chinese mainland for so many years. Imagine if the Chinese military deploys its troops around the America，how would the usa government and the US citizens feel？ What USA should do is not using its military and the US dollar to exploit the rest of the world（mainly the poor people of the world，as the rich will always be rich ) but use it's economic and military force to benifit the whole world especially the poor people of those authoritarian countries. If he advocates for the Africans or the poor people in the middle east，well，I certainly admire him. But he just cares for the American people. Obviously he is a selfish guy. What we (most people of the world) want and need are leaders and politicians who care for the poor people in each nation of the world.

这个标题里的Special是说秦教授的讲座不属于主流吗？

传承国内学者的光荣传统: 不说人话。

秦先生认为中国五四启蒙走向社会主义是受了日本的影响，这当然没错。但同时还有其他各种思潮在竞争。秦先生还是没能解释为什么是社会主义思潮而不是其他思潮在中国占了上风，更无法解释为何日本自己居然不受该思潮太大影响，却以该思潮影响了中国历史的走向。秦先生的解释，窃以为还是不清晰。

She is still defending the CCP. OMG. Wake up!

嘿嘿裕华这头发还是这么潇洒

看到秦老师真好

多年以後⋯⋯有人說潮水退去，莫如說冰消雪溶，裸泳不算事，藏屍方為大問題⋯⋯😂😂😂

在当下时代，秦晖老师之所以重要，不仅仅在于他学术上罕见的渊博和极度的专注；更在于面对当下争论不休的社会问题，他能够以难得的清晰逻辑，为我们守护最基本的底线。 秦晖老师学术与文字的背后，无不表明，社会少了共同底线的共识，会演变成何等的荒谬状态。珍惜秦晖，就是珍惜我们自己。虽然他的很多观点饱受争议，他的一些作品，甚至受到限制。但读过他的作品，都会遭遇一种电光火石般的冲击。

宪政有用美国也不会南北战争，战争能解决所有的问题，美国比谁都懂。

重复了

Stop hiring any Chinese Communist propogandist in American think tank! It is very dangerous! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rtVxd81ept2UiH0.htmlsi=jV38Eqtuiz-Gq9Ld This is no doubt a Chinese Communist propogandist

Stop hiring any Chinese Communist propogandist in American think tank! It is very dangerous! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rtVxd81ept2UiH0.htmlsi=jV38Eqtuiz-Gq9Ld This is no doubt a Chinese Communist propogandist

Very interesting. Also nice to be informed on not so recent, but still relevant debates. Personally it gives me some context to some of literature on Vietnam from the same time period. However, on the general question of violence I'd like to stress that there is a lot of contingency as well, often in direct relation to the amount of repression by the old system. I doubt that newer research will support the claim that violence is of integral necessity to fulfill revolutionary aims. That there is the bad habit of practically using violence to achieve aims is another story. In the context of "Revolution from Above" I would like to refer to the One-Child-Policy whose violent aspects according to more recent research were not needed to achieve the overall aim.

高晓松那段纯纯是情绪放大，什么叫“全国只有八个样板戏，其他都没有”？前三十年不说苏联传入的歌曲，梁祝就够震耳欲聋了吧，其他主旋律歌甚至连现在写出来的都无法媲美，还是说只有欧美流行乐传入后，大陆人才算真正听到音乐？？

I downloaded this video for my wife to see Sara. It's been some years since we met her last time in Xiamen, China.

This is fascinating! Wonder if there are some historical analyses regarding the gathering of violence at the very beginning of the revolution.

Insanely rambling and boring. All talk and no content

There's really no so called "Playbook", old or new, in Chinese Political Philosophy. The 'Central Philosophy' has always been 「大同」思維 (vs 「零和」思維), which is also clearly and vividly expressed in Republic China's (Taiwan) national anthem. This Political Philosophy has always been at the center and also the unifying force of China over the ages, under imperial and republic rules. Anyone who read Chinese history should know that. Note: Interpretation of this philosophy varies. Some in the West see it as 'Chinese Hegemony', thus a threat. Others see it as a progressive and harmonious force of the future of humans on Earth.

Half of what this guy says doesn't make any sense ti me. Just to take one example, Of course Americans are different people than the asians in terms of savings!! Also the social security and the status of the dollar as the reserve currency make a big difference in this regard. Changing the trade imbalance by brute force such as tariffs and sanctions is plainly stupid. Regarding the industrial policy, how sad the US does not have many SOE's to implement such policies 😂. And it would be a big slap on their face if they create such institutions because Chinese SOE's are precisely sanctioned by the US 😂.

Mr. Lightizer is so one-sided that his talk sounds like a job pitch in the potential trump administration. That China wants to become strong and rich is ambitious, not agressive. The trade deficit is called "wealth transfer" in the speech, why doesn't he talk about china is also one of the biggest debt holders of the US? So in which direction is the wealth transfer? People like the speaker is one of the main reasons for potential wars.

Amazing, tks much!

It was very strange that Angela did never once compare the Chinese regulation system with the US one which many feel is broken. The regulatory agencies in the United States have largely been neutered by successive administrations operating on neoliberal lines. Similarly, the big tech companies in the US are a law unto themselves. Lastly, Angela's comments on China's growing success in high tech industries were mealy mouthed and highly biased. She seems to criticize everything in China without any balanced assessment. She comes, across more as pro western political activist rather than an academic. Very disappointing...

It toke us 260 yrs and 70 for china? Which system worked best and im a vet

Capitalism and communism combined will we ever find the answer