It isn’t, assuming we are following Leninist analysis, and I’d argue that we should follow Leninist analysis of imperialism due to the depth of understanding it provides, how it works, why it arises, and how to stop it, all of which have been repeatedly tested in reality.
In short, BRI does not at all steal the surplus and prevent development of countries within the program, unlike what the West does, because BRI is about long-term cooperation and not about short-term superprofits. Capitalism can’t realistically fight the urge for immediate gratification, which is why it coups, bombs, and installs compradors, while socialist China focuses on win-win development that creates better contributors to the global market through shared development.
In other words, even the most cynical view of BRI, when viewed objectively, China’s strategy for personal benefit rests on long term delayed gratification, and it can make these choices because people have power over capital in China, rather than inverse in capitalist countries.
No? It’s not imperialism because it’s mutual development. Joining BRI results in large development without China stealing surplus value or installing compradors, which is what the west does. That’s why countries like the Congo are so poor despite being so resource rich when they are imperialized by the west. The fact that the result is mutual development and enrichment, and not one country plundering another, is why it isn’t imperialism.
You’re confusing the reasoning I gave for why China doesn’t have the same economic compulsion towards imperialism as the west does with evidence of it not being imperialist. Are you legitimately making the argument that mutual cooperation for long-term results for both countries is imperialism, or did you misread my comment?
I do criticize China. For example, I don’t think they go far enough when it comes to foreign policy, and they are still lagging behind countries like Cuba when it comes to social progressivism. I know the younger generation in the PRC is more socially progressive and internationally millitant, so the continued progress in China is likely to continue.
Can you explain why you belive BRI to be imperialist? You just said it’s “pretty imperialist” and “naked imperialism,” but haven’t justified why you believe so, other than an implied belief that any mutual cooperation for mutual gain between a more developed and less developed country is imperialism. You haven’t actually stated that, in fairness, which is why I’m asking for you to explain in your own words so I don’t have to read between the lines and assume.
They’re trapping poor African nations in a debt trap. It’s naked imperialism, and I just don’t believe that you’re stupid enough to believe they’re not going to use that leverage for personal gain.
Even a more cynical analysis China could also do that to be more appealing than the west, so it’s more profitable to not fuck the potential allies in the long term.
China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:
There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.
It’s clear at this point: participation in BRI results in sustained and rapid development and mutual cooperation, and working with the west results in sustained impoverishment. Again, it appears that you believe any cooperation between more developed and less developed countries is inherently imperialist, and impossible to be mutually beneficial. I’d like to see proof.
It’s only imperialist if it’s actually harmful and extractive. Otherwise all mutual aid is imperialist, Cuba sending doctors throughout the world is imperialist, disaster relief organizations are imperialist. It’s nonsense
Belt and road is pretty imperialist
It isn’t, assuming we are following Leninist analysis, and I’d argue that we should follow Leninist analysis of imperialism due to the depth of understanding it provides, how it works, why it arises, and how to stop it, all of which have been repeatedly tested in reality.
In short, BRI does not at all steal the surplus and prevent development of countries within the program, unlike what the West does, because BRI is about long-term cooperation and not about short-term superprofits. Capitalism can’t realistically fight the urge for immediate gratification, which is why it coups, bombs, and installs compradors, while socialist China focuses on win-win development that creates better contributors to the global market through shared development.
In other words, even the most cynical view of BRI, when viewed objectively, China’s strategy for personal benefit rests on long term delayed gratification, and it can make these choices because people have power over capital in China, rather than inverse in capitalist countries.
So it’s only imperialist if it’s for short term gain?
Imagine believing that they’re doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and don’t expect anything in return.
Why can’t you criticize anything they do, even when it’s naked imperialism?
No? It’s not imperialism because it’s mutual development. Joining BRI results in large development without China stealing surplus value or installing compradors, which is what the west does. That’s why countries like the Congo are so poor despite being so resource rich when they are imperialized by the west. The fact that the result is mutual development and enrichment, and not one country plundering another, is why it isn’t imperialism.
You’re confusing the reasoning I gave for why China doesn’t have the same economic compulsion towards imperialism as the west does with evidence of it not being imperialist. Are you legitimately making the argument that mutual cooperation for long-term results for both countries is imperialism, or did you misread my comment?
I do criticize China. For example, I don’t think they go far enough when it comes to foreign policy, and they are still lagging behind countries like Cuba when it comes to social progressivism. I know the younger generation in the PRC is more socially progressive and internationally millitant, so the continued progress in China is likely to continue.
Can you explain why you belive BRI to be imperialist? You just said it’s “pretty imperialist” and “naked imperialism,” but haven’t justified why you believe so, other than an implied belief that any mutual cooperation for mutual gain between a more developed and less developed country is imperialism. You haven’t actually stated that, in fairness, which is why I’m asking for you to explain in your own words so I don’t have to read between the lines and assume.
They’re trapping poor African nations in a debt trap. It’s naked imperialism, and I just don’t believe that you’re stupid enough to believe they’re not going to use that leverage for personal gain.
Source: your asshole
You’re right, they’re doing it out of the kindness of their hearts
Tragic: the capitalism-poisoned western mind literally cannot conceive of a mutually beneficial arrangement.
And what is the benefit to China that isn’t imperialistic?
Even a more cynical analysis China could also do that to be more appealing than the west, so it’s more profitable to not fuck the potential allies in the long term.
Removed by mod
China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:
Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa
China debt trap? PH an ‘expert in bad loans,’ Locsin says
Deborah Brautigam Debunks the Chinese Debt Trap Theory in New Research Paper
China’s Debt Relief for Africa: Emerging Deliberations
There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.
It’s clear at this point: participation in BRI results in sustained and rapid development and mutual cooperation, and working with the west results in sustained impoverishment. Again, it appears that you believe any cooperation between more developed and less developed countries is inherently imperialist, and impossible to be mutually beneficial. I’d like to see proof.
It’s only imperialist if it’s actually harmful and extractive. Otherwise all mutual aid is imperialist, Cuba sending doctors throughout the world is imperialist, disaster relief organizations are imperialist. It’s nonsense
China is not building up African infrastructure out of the kindness of their hearts, and I’m pretty sure you know this.
Tragic: the capitalism-poisoned western mind literally cannot concieve of a mutually beneficial arrangement