Apples to Oranges and lack of historical materialism is Maoism’s bread and butter. They don’t really have anything good to say, do they?
Apples to Oranges and lack of historical materialism is Maoism’s bread and butter. They don’t really have anything good to say, do they?
What is the difference?
I’m not trying to be argumentative; I really don’t know.
By investing you end up owning the thing you invest in. Ownership of infrastructure is a pretty good vehicle for imperialism imo. Is the point that China is not using that infrastructure to exploit?
I’m not sure if China “owns” the infrastructure they invest in, but they do make deals. “We give you x and you give y.”
The difference between majority Chinese investments vs. majority Western investments is the fairness and impact of the deals. Whereas majority Chinese investments genuinely help develop their partners on fair terms, majority Western investments purposefully underdevelop their partners and create dependency.
Investments can be good, they can be bad; unfortunately some can’t imagine it being good and immediately attack it.
Imperialism is surplus value extraction across national borders, IE the theft of land, labor, and resources from a weaker country to feed the stronger one. I greatly doubt even Britain in this investment is gaining much if anything, trade amongst the imperial core nations rarely has much profit margins, because labor costs are similar.
Trade or investment do not necessarily mean imperialism, the devil is in the details.