That is only because the US has outsourced it for them. Europe basically invented third world intervention and only back to back world wars stopped it. If power flips back to Europe and China, don’t think that means the global south will suddenly be interference free. Ask China’s neighbors and any country with fishable ocean how non-expansionist and non-interference they are.
Europe invented third world intervention, and after the US took that over from them most of Europe lost most of its ability to do it independantly. Most third world intervention today is done by the US, if the US collapses it won’t be replaced immediately by Europeans who can all of a sudden magically project power into Latin America.
Ask China’s neighbors and any country with fishable ocean how non-expansionist and non-interference they are.
Don’t compare what the US empire does to anything happening in the South China Sea, that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Even the very bad things China has done so far (for example, war with Vietnam) don’t come close to things the US does on a regular basis.
The US collapsing would create a huge imperialist power vacuum that would at least take time to fill, if that filling ever happened. I’ll quote my original comment you were replying to here.
However, I think the perspective of people from outside the US, especially in the Global South has to be considered. For them, AmeriKKKan “wars, bloody conflicts, authoritarian crackdowns” are already the reality and have been for a long time. America dying is purely beneficial to them, the slow death and thrashing from their perspective will just be the same thing America has always been, but less and less effective over time.
What you’re saying in response to this is, at best, pointless doomerism based on vague hypotheticals. I’m talking about the reality of the world today, which is that America is the only country with both a significant ability to carry out these interventions worldwide and a significant history of doing so.
My only point was that I think you are being incredibly optimistic on how long it takes to fill an imperialist power vacuum, or that the US is definitely currently worse than whatever would replace it. I would say that I am extrapolating from basically all of human history rather than doomerism, but I suppose that is a matter of perspective.
Chinese fishing fleets have been documentedly invading fisheries all over the world and not just the South China Sea. Latin America might experience more lag time on foreign influence due to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, but exploitation in Africa is not primarily being done by the US currently so I wouldn’t expect to see massive shakeups there.
but exploitation in Africa is not primarily being done by the US currently so I wouldn’t expect to see massive shakeups there.
Debatable, the US is involved a lot in Africa. So are the Europeans, of course, as well as “Israel” and the gulf monarchies, but all of these are propped up to varying degrees by the American world order (except perhaps the French, but their empire is fading as we speak).
I’m not sure if you meant to imply that China was the primary exploiter of Africa (and I don’t want to assume you were saying that), but if so I disagree with the assertion that any degree of Chinese exploitation which might exist compares with what I’ve described in my previous paragraph (these countries routinely openly topple governments and start/support wars and genocides in Africa for their own benefit - in Sudan being the most well-known current example but not even close to the only one).
I would say that I am extrapolating from basically all of human history rather than doomerism, but I suppose that is a matter of perspective.
I think “all of human history” is a bit of a thought-terminating cliche in this case. Many things throughout history have been aesthetically similar (and in some ways functionally similar), but the material basis and therefore specific mechanisms were different. Imperialism in the financial capital sense (as in Lenin’s description) is a very recent thing, historically speaking (perhaps the past few centuries, approximately).
You are correct, I do not want to imply that China is the primary exploiter in Africa, nor is the belt and road as it currently exists nearly as bad as historical colonization in the region. My concern is that in a global crisis like the complete collapse of the US, China and others would take the opportunity to expand in a similar fashion.
I would argue that there is not a substantive material difference between imperialism since the 1900s and Rome. Each replacement empire brings new spins on the same formulas. The US empire isn’t much different at this point than feudal empires of the past, just with monopolies instead of aristocracy.
The problem I see is that there has never been a significant lag time between empires and is more a passing of the baton as additional empires either rise from the remains or are subsumed by another empire.
My concern is that in a global crisis like the complete collapse of the US, China and others would take the opportunity to expand in a similar fashion.
I personally think this is largely a hypothetical at this point. As you say, the BRI isn’t really the same as the historical colonialism/imperialism we’re discussing and I haven’t really seen anything from China that indicates that they have a desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If anything, they’re often (rightfully, sometimes) accused of not interfering enough internationally against US influence.
I would argue that there is not a substantive material difference between imperialism since the 1900s and Rome. Each replacement empire brings new spins on the same formulas. The US empire isn’t much different at this point than feudal empires of the past, just with monopolies instead of aristocracy.
I would argue there are substantial important differences. Imperialism is different in both form and function than colonialism and neither are the same as the Roman empire. A notable thing about (Western) Rome as an example, though, is that its collapse did not immediately lead to a different empire taking over all its territories. I guess it can be argued that the “barbarian kingdoms” tried, but they failed. The Western Roman Empire faded away and was never unified again.
I think you’re right and we just have a disagreement on the inevitability of empire and the speed at which it would happen. Thank you for discussing, though! /genuine
I see the BRI as a soft precursor imperialism and just a different place on the same “spectrum” of imperialism. They aren’t committing crimes like Belgium, obviously, but China’s handling of Tibet and Interference with it’s other direct neighbors does signal to me more than willingness to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
I do not think this is unique to China in any way, mind you, but I do not see any indications China is better than any of the 5 eyes countries or Russia. I believe all governments are inherently amoral entities, being an abstract collection of laws and bureaucracy.
The Western Roman empire is an interesting case, as while the various “barbarian” empires were fairly short lived, the members each ended up running their own globe-spanning empires, not to mention the various Holy Roman Empires.
I would like to thank you as well, this has been an excellent discussion and I have enjoyed learning about your perspective.
That is only because the US has outsourced it for them. Europe basically invented third world intervention and only back to back world wars stopped it. If power flips back to Europe and China, don’t think that means the global south will suddenly be interference free. Ask China’s neighbors and any country with fishable ocean how non-expansionist and non-interference they are.
Europe invented third world intervention, and after the US took that over from them most of Europe lost most of its ability to do it independantly. Most third world intervention today is done by the US, if the US collapses it won’t be replaced immediately by Europeans who can all of a sudden magically project power into Latin America.
Don’t compare what the US empire does to anything happening in the South China Sea, that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Even the very bad things China has done so far (for example, war with Vietnam) don’t come close to things the US does on a regular basis.
The US collapsing would create a huge imperialist power vacuum that would at least take time to fill, if that filling ever happened. I’ll quote my original comment you were replying to here.
What you’re saying in response to this is, at best, pointless doomerism based on vague hypotheticals. I’m talking about the reality of the world today, which is that America is the only country with both a significant ability to carry out these interventions worldwide and a significant history of doing so.
My only point was that I think you are being incredibly optimistic on how long it takes to fill an imperialist power vacuum, or that the US is definitely currently worse than whatever would replace it. I would say that I am extrapolating from basically all of human history rather than doomerism, but I suppose that is a matter of perspective.
Chinese fishing fleets have been documentedly invading fisheries all over the world and not just the South China Sea. Latin America might experience more lag time on foreign influence due to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, but exploitation in Africa is not primarily being done by the US currently so I wouldn’t expect to see massive shakeups there.
Debatable, the US is involved a lot in Africa. So are the Europeans, of course, as well as “Israel” and the gulf monarchies, but all of these are propped up to varying degrees by the American world order (except perhaps the French, but their empire is fading as we speak).
I’m not sure if you meant to imply that China was the primary exploiter of Africa (and I don’t want to assume you were saying that), but if so I disagree with the assertion that any degree of Chinese exploitation which might exist compares with what I’ve described in my previous paragraph (these countries routinely openly topple governments and start/support wars and genocides in Africa for their own benefit - in Sudan being the most well-known current example but not even close to the only one).
I think “all of human history” is a bit of a thought-terminating cliche in this case. Many things throughout history have been aesthetically similar (and in some ways functionally similar), but the material basis and therefore specific mechanisms were different. Imperialism in the financial capital sense (as in Lenin’s description) is a very recent thing, historically speaking (perhaps the past few centuries, approximately).
You are correct, I do not want to imply that China is the primary exploiter in Africa, nor is the belt and road as it currently exists nearly as bad as historical colonization in the region. My concern is that in a global crisis like the complete collapse of the US, China and others would take the opportunity to expand in a similar fashion.
I would argue that there is not a substantive material difference between imperialism since the 1900s and Rome. Each replacement empire brings new spins on the same formulas. The US empire isn’t much different at this point than feudal empires of the past, just with monopolies instead of aristocracy.
The problem I see is that there has never been a significant lag time between empires and is more a passing of the baton as additional empires either rise from the remains or are subsumed by another empire.
I personally think this is largely a hypothetical at this point. As you say, the BRI isn’t really the same as the historical colonialism/imperialism we’re discussing and I haven’t really seen anything from China that indicates that they have a desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If anything, they’re often (rightfully, sometimes) accused of not interfering enough internationally against US influence.
I would argue there are substantial important differences. Imperialism is different in both form and function than colonialism and neither are the same as the Roman empire. A notable thing about (Western) Rome as an example, though, is that its collapse did not immediately lead to a different empire taking over all its territories. I guess it can be argued that the “barbarian kingdoms” tried, but they failed. The Western Roman Empire faded away and was never unified again.
I think you’re right and we just have a disagreement on the inevitability of empire and the speed at which it would happen. Thank you for discussing, though! /genuine
I see the BRI as a soft precursor imperialism and just a different place on the same “spectrum” of imperialism. They aren’t committing crimes like Belgium, obviously, but China’s handling of Tibet and Interference with it’s other direct neighbors does signal to me more than willingness to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
I do not think this is unique to China in any way, mind you, but I do not see any indications China is better than any of the 5 eyes countries or Russia. I believe all governments are inherently amoral entities, being an abstract collection of laws and bureaucracy.
The Western Roman empire is an interesting case, as while the various “barbarian” empires were fairly short lived, the members each ended up running their own globe-spanning empires, not to mention the various Holy Roman Empires.
I would like to thank you as well, this has been an excellent discussion and I have enjoyed learning about your perspective.