u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Why China is not imperialist:
First off, we need to establish what imperialism IS before we can decide if any country fits it or not.
To do this, I shall be using Lenin’s definition.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm
That Definition has 5 major components:
I. CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION AND MONOPOLIES
II. BANKS AND THEIR NEW ROLE
III. FINANCE CAPITAL AND THE FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY
IV. EXPORT OF CAPITAL
V. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS
I. CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION AND MONOPOLIES
Why does this matter? What makes this imperialism?
Corruption. While the state having a monopoly might lead to negative consequences and issues, in a bourgeois state, it leads to specific sets of issues. Such as price fixing, price gouging, and a whole raft of activities that boil down to ‘The rich make all the money, and you can’t stop them.’
“But this is a circumstance which only accelerates concentration and the formation of monopolist manufacturers’ associations, cartels, syndicates, etc.” – Lenin.
Even higher levels of wealth flow into their hands. Even higher levels of power and influence over the government. That’s why it’s bad.
So why does this apply or not apply to China?
Simple: it’s not a bourgeoise state.
The rich do not control the government, there is no mechanism for lobbying, as there is in the west.
There is no control mechanism, short of outright bribery, and the CPC takes that shit real serious.
And, all major companies have a CPC cadre on board, to watchdog them.
The problem is not monopolies. It’s what monopolies can do, in a dictatorship of the bourgeoise, as Lenin points out.
For this to be an issue, a company would not only have to be powerful, it would have to have a monopoly, and for the local cadre to be idiots, or subverted, and for those checking on them to be likewise, and for the CPC also to be clueless, or corrupted, and for the people not to notice either.
None of this is happening, nor can anyone present any evidence to it occurring, save in occasional incidences, which ARE punished.
II. BANKS AND THEIR NEW ROLE
“As banking develops and becomes concentrated in a small number of establishments, the banks grow from modest middlemen into powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small businessmen and also the larger part of the means of production and sources of raw materials in any one country and in a number of countries.” – Lenin
So this is more of the same. The banks do the corrupt, power grabbing monopoly thing, but by playing with finance, not production.
Not only do the above issues apply from [1], but in PRC, the banks are state owned.
This keeps the power of all that wealth, and possible leverage, in the hands of the people, via the state.
So there is even LESS opportunity for things to go wrong here.
II. FINANCE CAPITAL AND THE FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY
So, this is when finance capital rather than industrial capital has a leading role. When a company or bank makes money not by producing things, or by owning companies that produce things, but by playing in the stock markets, doing clever things with the money supply, and that sort of thing, rather than by making and selling more stuff.
And they become oligarchs when they use this power to control the government.
So it’s not just ‘rich people exist’ but more than that. It’s ‘rich people exist and have undue power and influence over the government, like they do in the USA.’
So, are they?
Well if they were, what would we expect?
Well, we see in the west that laws do not apply to oligarchs. That they get at best a slap on the wrist when they do something wrong, or demand and receive bailouts when they do something dumb.
Do we see this in China?
No.
The rich in China walk a fine line. They are not well liked. They have no influence over policy, beyond that which they can persuade.
If they try to use their power and influence, they get busted.
If they fuck up really badly, they get executed.
That’s not what happens to oligarchs.
Sure, they’re rich, and that inequality is a contradiction. Which the CPC is working on right now.
But that’s not an oligopoly.
No matter how rich they get, they only become oligarchs when they have undue power and influence over the local or state government.
And to assume that because they have money, they MUST have that undue influence, is to bring your western bourgeois baggage into the conversation.
III. EXPORT OF CAPITAL
“Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition held undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital.” – Lenin
What does this mean? This means that in addition to, or rather than exporting stuff and things, a country exports money.
Oh noes! China exports capital! Well that’s it. Case closed, better pack it up, and go home…
Unless, we read past the headlines, maybe?
“England became a capitalist country before any other, and by the middle of the nineteenth century, having adopted free trade, claimed to be the “workshop of the world”, the supplier of manufactured goods to all countries, which in exchange were to keep her provided with raw materials. But in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, this monopoly was already undermined; for other countries, sheltering themselves with “protective” tariffs, developed into independent capitalist states.” – Lenin.
Well that sure sounds like China right? OMG, it’s true!
No. Chill.
“The export of capital is made possible by a number of backward countries having already been drawn into world capitalist intercourse; main railways have either been or are being built in those countries, elementary conditions for industrial development have been created, etc. The need to export capital arises from the fact that in a few countries capitalism has become “overripe” and (owing to the backward state of agriculture and the poverty of the masses) capital cannot find a field for “profitable” investment.” - Lenin.
Chill ok?
All of this is true.
China IS exporting capital.
It IS building roads, ports, railways etc.
All of that is true.
But this is also true: “The principal spheres of investment of British capital are the British colonies, which are very large also in America (for example, Canada), not to mention Asia, etc. In this case, enormous exports of capital are bound up most closely with vast colonies, of tile importance of which for imperialism I shall speak later. In the case of France the situation is different. French capital exports are invested mainly in Europe, primarily in Russia (at least ten thousand million francs). This is mainly loan capital, government loans, and not capital invested in industrial undertakings. Unlike British colonial imperialism, French imperialism might be termed usury imperialism. In the case of Germany, we have a third type; colonies are inconsiderable, and German capital invested abroad is divided most evenly between Europe and America.”
Colonies.
“France, when granting loans to Russia, “squeezed” her in the commercial treaty of September 16, 1905, stipulating for certain concessions to run till 1917. She did the same in the commercial treaty with Japan of August 19, 1911.”
Squeezing.
That’s the difference.
It’s almost literally the difference between being stabbed by a knife, and a surgeon using a knife [scalpel] to operate on you, and fix you up. You get stabbed either way, but the intent AND result is quite different.
What Lenin is describing is the use of capital to extract and control. Even to cripple local industries. Why buy local, when the foreign stuff is cheaper/better/both?
China is not doing that.
Not only are their terms more friendly, and they routinely forgive debts when they cannot be paid, but the point and purpose of the capital expenditure is different.
Being ‘nice’ about it is not what makes them not imperialist, it’s WHAT THE MATERIAL RESULTS ARE, as well as the purpose of the capital export.
The material results are: that China’s capital exports build up the economies of the countries affected, and do NOT subvert, weaken or destroy those economies as western capital exports do.
This is because China is building up those countries to sell them stuff. Not to extract their mineral wealth, or whatever.
Because they are NOT capitalists.
That’s the big one. The headline says ‘Capital export’ but the meat of the section says WHAT HAPPENS when the capital is exported.
And those two things are very different.
Anyone making the argument that capital export OF ANY TYPE = Imperialism, has not read the fucking book.
IV. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS
Ignoring that China is not capitalist, and not ruled by the bourgeoise, even if they were, they are NOT dividing the world into sections that they can rule or extract from. So they are no more imperialist than Eire is.
Beyond Lenin:
Military bases? Military bases are not imperialism. They are tools. And while they can be used to leverage military power in the service of imperialism, they are not used that way by non-imperialist states, or China for that matter.
When China uses its military base in Djibouti to ‘persuade’ the people there to give a crazy deal on oil/lithium/regime change, then yeah, maybe.
Beyond even Lenin’s specifications, there is the Poverty Alleviation campaign.
There are many people who are still poor, but Severe Poverty has been eradicated.
No bourgeois country could, or would do this.
There is no advantage in this for them.
Worse, China does not vote for their President or Chairman.
So Xi Jinping is not buying votes.
The only reason that they did this is because they are serious about socialism.
This shit was expensive.
This is not socialism.
But it is what socialism is FOR.
This is why we DO socialism.
And if this is not what YOUR socialism is for, i don’t fucking want it, and i don’t think China does, either.
Anyone claiming China is imperialist, is either simplistic in their thinking, lazy, desperate, or dishonest.
Some more articles:
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/05/06/russia-and-china-are-not-imperialist/
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/09/19/china-debt-trap-ph-an-expert-in-bad-loans-locsin-says
https://reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21Y3KN?__twitter_impression=true
https://reader.chathamhouse.org/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy-jones-hameiri#
China/Africa:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oeo4OVLUlWDk2NZI3UO6rl6bzVdiSQOdJYRukPffJA4
https://medium.com/@leohezhao/china-africa-a-new-accord-e375a6ffe535
https://www.workers.org/2020/05/48572/
https://liberationschool.org/five-imperialist-myths-about-chinas-role-in-africa/
https://qz.com/africa/1379457/china-africa-summit-african-leaders-praise-relations-with-beijing/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObefKNUEtKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03l3Ra4bL_A
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2020.1807318
The video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QejOE8WfVoU
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhouNo. I tore that down, at length.
It’s not nice imperialism. It’s not imperialism at all.
u/McHonkers - originally from r/GenZhouI disagree. You nitpicked quotes that make it seem like there are extra conditions to when exporting capital becomes imperialism. But you’re complete wrong about that.
Exporting capital and competing in foreign market is imperialism. Full stop.
Exporting capital by definition is squeezing out profits from a foreign country and its working class. Doesn’t matter if it’s a defacto colony, a dependent state or a complete equal. That’s the exploitative nature of capitalist markets. There is no way around it.
I completely support China and I think their path of development is right, smart and I hope it’ll be successful in building a socialist state but we don’t need to pretend that using private enterprises and mixed economy to develop isn’t coming with same contradictions and consequences it came with for all other nations that developed through the same mechanisms.
The big difference is that the Chinese state acts against these negative capitalist consequences and isn’t embracing the bourgeoisie interest like western bourgeoisie states.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhouSure would have been stupid of me to quotemine a book that everyone has r4ead, and also include a link to, huh?
Well done. You just made ‘imperialism’ into a meaningless term. Because by THAT definition, ALL countries, everywhere, are imperialist. Cuba. DPRK, Greenland, etc. all export capital, and invest in foreign markets.
nope. Exporting capital is exporting capital. Imperialist countries GET that capital by squeezing foreign countries.
China does not. You could argue that they are squeezing their own people, and that this is bad, but your earlier argument is just junk.
then you will have no trouble proving it, will you?
u/McHonkers - originally from r/GenZhouSure. Exporting private capital creates a profit ‘at home’. That is a transfer of value from a dependent place (a place in need of capital/resources/goods) towards a core place that exported said thing. Only if that exchange takes place on completely mutual level it doesn’t involve a squeeze (making a profit). Every time you use capital or anything else to create private profits you do squeeze.
And every capitalist market has to expand into imperialism in order to not collapse into crisis. As Marx and Engels explain, capitalism is a system inherently prone to both cyclical and generalised crisis. Cyclical crises typically begin with falling demand in the sector producing means of production (what Marx referred to as Department I). During the boom period of a business cycle, both the production of means of production (plant and machinery, expanded transportation, research and development and so forth) and the production of consumer goods grow in tandem. At a certain point, however, business expansion reaches the limits of the current market and investment in new production facilities drops off, leading inevitably to lower levels of employment, lower levels of income and, hence, insufficient effective demand for consumer goods. Restricted demand attendant to increased unemployment forces those capitalists in the sector producing consumer goods (Department II) to reduce costs of production and to renovate their plant and machinery, regardless of whether it is physically usable or not.
Increased demand for the output of Department I must initially lag behind its capacity, however, and companies in Department II bid up the price of equipment and materials. In consequence, the profit rate in Department I rises above that in Department II and new capital flows into the former, prompting its capitalists to invest as heavily as possible. Yet by the time this new productive capacity has become fully operational, demand from Department II must necessarily have declined since the attendant approach of full employment drives wages up and poses a threat to the rate of profit, hence stymieing further investment. Still the expansion of production does not typically stop at this point. Rather, there ensues a period of speculation, ‘fuelled by the expansion of credit due to the slowing of productive investment and the accumulation of idle money capital. Purchasing commodities in the hope of further price increases, speculators would accumulate stocks. As speculative began to prevail over real investment, the final turning point of the cycle would draw near.’ (Marx 1977 [1885], Chapter 19.) Capitalism passes through these cycles repeatedly, with their duration and intensity increasing according to a more general tendency for capitalism to break down entirely. This generalised crisis is endemic to the logic of capital accumulation. As capital accumulation demands ever higher investments in machinery and fixed assets (c, constant capital) – necessary both to undercut competitors and to block the tendency of rising wages – the share of new value-creating, ‘living’ labour-power (v, variable capital) in production diminishes. Over time, the surplus value (s, the difference between the value of the workers’ wages and the value generated during the course of their employment) needed to maintain a constantly expanding capital outlay declines and so, in tandem, does the rate of profit (r, defined by Marx as s/c + v). With every new advance in the technological foundations of capital accumulation, that is, investment in machinery and plant as a proportion of total production investment, there is a decrease in capitalists inclination to invest in productive, surplus value-creating labour. The resultant underemployment of labour ensures not only that less surplus value is being produced, but also that capitalists are increasingly unable to realise surplus value through the sale of commodities. As a result, there is not only less demand in the consumer goods sector but, consequently, also reduced demand for the means of production.
To ensure the optimal rate of profit, capitalists are forced to increase production, to introduce new technology and to throw an ever increasing quantity of articles onto the market. Exploitation, however, limits the popular consumption of these commodities. Whereas capitalists struggle to keep wages as low as possible to reap higher profits, wages represent a considerable part of the effective demand required to yield profit from sales. As such, if capitalists increase wages, they limit their potential profits, but if wages are lowered the market will be concomitantly constrained. In both cases (restricted profits and restricted markets, respectively), capitalists will cease making new investments. The imperialist solution to capitalism problems, then, has two sides: profitable investment opportunities in the dependent countries and the expansion of an affluent market in the imperialist countries, created by a transfer of value in the form of superprofits and cheap goods to sustain superwages.
Marx had specified the principal means by which the tendency for the rate of profit to fall (TRPF) is countered as follows: (1) cheapening of the elements of constant capital (machinery and materials); (2) raising of the intensity of exploitation (longer working days, more efficient labour organisation, lower unit labour costs); (3) depression of wages below their value (superexploitation, the payment of below-subsistence wages) and below their current value; (4) relative overpopulation (or increased unemployment); and (5) foreign trade. All five means of countering the TRPF together ensure that capitalism becomes a mode of production in which value is increasingly produced and realised at the level of an imperialist global economy. As a means of combating economic stagnation, an imperialist solution has been pursued vigorously by the world’s leading monopolies and their representative states from the late nineteenth century until today. From that time, capitalism has sought trade and investment opportunities in the low-wage countries at the same time as it has created a mass consumer market in the imperialist countries, sustaining itself by a transfer of value reflected in both superprofits and superwages.
All parts of the Chinese economy that are privatized and act upon a profit motive either already act in the global imperialist economy or ultimately strive to do so, because private capital has no other option then to invest into the most profitable opportunity in order to sustain itself.
The Chinese state on other hand in contrast to the capitalist states does not act imperialistic and is not a violent force backing up the private imperial ambitious of their native bourgeoisie.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhouOoops. You just conflated TRADE with CAPITALISM.
Rookie mistake.
Perfectly balanced trade is impossible. Only agreement is possible.
Also, your problems exist on several levels.
For starters, i didn’t ask you about what Marx said. You’re telling me that What i said about Lenin,in Lenin’s book is wrong. So that makes everything that follows a waste of time.
This is just false.
Remember, we are talking about imperialism. So stick to imperialism.