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/Ambedextrose - originally from r/GenZhou
Well saidu/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Well, you can guess who THIS is aimed at.u/kodlak17 - originally from r/GenZhou
Is this about that again?u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
He’s kept on going. This was triggered by his latest commentary on the subject. I swear, I’m starting to wonder if something serious happened to him.You saw thay Bay had a shot at him?
u/McHonkers - originally from r/GenZhou
I mean, he’s not wrong though. Every capitalist economy needs to expand beyond its regional market at some point. And even if the state doesn’t use it’s military capabilities to back up and enforce their nations bourgeoisie interests, the simply act of a company expanding beyond it’s national borders is imperialist.Of course Chinas “imperialism” is at best a air quote imperialism and is a joke compared to what the western world is pulling. But as long as there are private enterprises that are allowed to participate in foreign markets and are allowed to export capital that’s still imperialistic.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
No. I tore that down, at length.It’s not nice imperialism. It’s not imperialism at all.
u/McHonkers - originally from r/GenZhou
I 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/GenZhou
Sure would have been stupid of me to quotemine a book that everyone has r4ead, and also include a link to, huh?Exporting capital and competing in foreign market is imperialism. Full stop.
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.
Exporting capital by definition is squeezing out profits from a foreign country and its working class.
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.
But you’re complete wrong about that.
then you will have no trouble proving it, will you?
u/Elektribe - originally from r/GenZhou
This is probably directed anarchists predominantly. They have enough trouble with the concept of the Dictatorship of The Proletariat, they think it’s 5 people in control of everything rather than the property of retaining control/representation of society by the masses rather than the capitalists, the exact thing you’e want in an anarchist society as well even if you didn’t attempt it.They also don’t understand the vanguard which, again they think is 5 people controlling everything instead of the existence of a group/bloc of people that largely help to educate/inform and organize and grow class consciousness… basically the social influencers of the ideology and who assist the populace with building up dual power structures. Their goal being to help produce the revolution and guide the elements of liberation into unified beneficial action rather than just chaotic revolts that accomplish little.
Basically it’s summed up as to leading directives are : you need to actively do shit to make revolutions work - so do that, and once revolution happens you need a system that maintains the status quo of the masses in power rather than rolling things back - don’t let capitalists subvert society and the whole reason for the revolution.
Neither of these things are evil, or fascist, or things anarchists largely already don’t want. Though arguably anarchists have this concept that if capitalist come in doing an imperialism and corrupting their society it would be ‘authoritarian’ to take any action against the capitalist imperialism so… They perhaps don’t want the dotp but a dotb. Which isn’t gonna end well but also ironic that they complain about imperialism but apparently their ideology only supports complaining about it when it’s not and also not doing anything to fight against imperialism.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Not really.One specific ML who seems to have issues RN, with China.
Seems to be transitioning to the bad kind of Maoist.
u/dimlimsimlim - originally from r/GenZhou
Look at Paul now. I just watched his stream with the Maoist premier guy. I basically refuted every single of his points in my head, except that of Mao rejecting that the primary contradiction in China was no longer between socialism or capitalism or whatever, can’t remember.u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
They switched from ‘class war’ to ‘imperialism.’Which is larger scale class war.
But then, Paul did call USSR imperialist, and Cuba a sugar colony.
So i wouldn’t put too much weight to his words.
u/dimlimsimlim - originally from r/GenZhou
I see. Yea it’s a pity that he went down that path lolu/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Also, i found it telling that Paul based his change of view on… no new information.And he made reference to the debunked CPI-Maoist doc.
Yeah, THAT one.
Worse, he had debunked that exact doc before.
Then insisted that he could not understand why people were giving him a hard time about being dogmatic, and how is itr possible to be dogmatic, and change your mind?
Like duh, you’re dogmatic when you cling to dogmatic views. changing your mind TO a dogmatic view is dogmatism.
u/dimlimsimlim - originally from r/GenZhou
Yea. It’s pretty weird. I think it has something to do with him screwing up on his first “China isn’t imperialist” video by just saying “cuz they execute billionaires”, and got called out by the Maoist, which of course was a perfect opportunity to change his mind. When did he debunk that CPI Maoist doc, though?u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
IIRC, it was the now missing stream with him and Bayarea415.The execution of billionaires is decent evidence that China is a DOTP, because if they were not, it would be like western countries where you can’t touch billionaires.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Yeah. He has useful takes on other subjects, but since he met those nice maoist people…
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
I watched that stream. I made a post debunking that presentation specifically. Might have been a real long comment, IDK.That lead to THIS post.
u/dimlimsimlim - originally from r/GenZhou
By the way, would you say that private property dominates society in China? Due to supposedly 60-70% of assets being “privately” owned. But China has a weird way of defining private enterprises, where only a few percentage of shares being sold into private hands, right make a government owned company private, right?Although there is no private ownership of land, something that puzzled me is that a lot of the land is still used for generalised commodity production and a sort of “flourishing” of private property.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
It’s dialectic.Depends whether you count it by heads, Yuan, or control.
China is simultaneously opening up, and increasing control.
u/dimlimsimlim - originally from r/GenZhou
Interesting, would you care to elaborate more?u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
It’s a measurement issue.Because the economy is changing, so things will get bigger or smaller depending on how you measure it.
like, CPC is tightening up controls on companies by adding CPC cadre watchdogs.
But also loosening controls over who can own what.
SOE’s are getting bigger and more efficient.
But so are private companies.
And the balance is constantly changing.
u/dimlimsimlim - originally from r/GenZhou
I see. Interesting.
u/JuRaGo_ - originally from r/GenZhou
Useful sources in case someone wants to claim China is just trying to “debt-trap” poor countries or otherwise exploit them:https://commons.ln.edu.hk/ipswp/1/
Clearly, based on the existing macro-level evidence, it is difficult to emphatically prove that the PRC engages in debt-trap diplomacy.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2020.1807318
From the available literature on the practice of debt-trap diplomacy by China, there exists no strong evidence to support the narrative.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3745021
We found that China has restructured or refinanced approximately US$ 15 billion of debt in Africa between 2000 and 2019. We found no “asset seizures” and despite contract clauses requiring arbitration, no evidence of the use of courts to enforce payments, or application of penalty interest rates.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/108455/
Overall, our findings cast some doubts on the fierce and often-times ideological debate around Chinese presence in Africa. We show that the effects of Chinese FDI are highly heterogeneous, but overall positive in the medium run.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is seen by some as a geopolitical strategy to ensnare countries in unsustainable debt and allow China undue influence. However, the available evidence challenges this position: economic factors are the primary driver of current BRI projects; China’s development financing system is too fragmented and poorly coordinated to pursue detailed strategic objectives; and developing-country governments and their associated political and economic interests determine the nature of BRI projects on their territory.
https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/cms/bris-debt-trap-diplomacy-reality-or-myth/#.YDsSsRiIaDZ
Summing up, in contrast to the views of many commentators and analysts, our recent book finds that although there are a large number of implementation issues confronting the BRI, the DTD thesis is more a myth rather than a reality.
https://www.csis.org/give-and-take-bri-africa
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/ocean-debt-belt-and-road-and-debt-diplomacy-pacific
The evidence to date suggests China has not been engaged in deliberate ‘debt trap’ diplomacy in the Pacific.
u/balgruufgat - originally from r/GenZhou
Pretty sure Marx’s original thinking was that socialism could only truly be built on top of a highly developed capitalist society. IE, a just socialist society could only be built on top of an unjust capitalist one. The notion that China may need to temporarily engage in some exploitation - even serious and condemnable exploitation, though I do not know any examples off hand of this; this comment is dealing in hypotheticals - in order to develop to the point where they can stop engaging in such behavior without sending their country into ruin seems to escape people. We can and should criticize such behavior when and where it exists, but must also acknowledge the possibility that an alternative is not realistically materially viable.u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Yep.Marx was wrong about a few things.
Socialism CAN only be built on a prosperous base.
But the revolution can only happen [based on history] in countries not at that level.
Society of all kinds runs on the surplus value created by labour.
Feudal, slavery, capitalist, socialist.
The difference is: who gets the surplus, and what do they do with it?
If you wanna be strict and say that if it goes to any but the worker that made it, it’s exploitation, then sure, socialism has exploitation.
Better used exploitation, but still there.
But as Yanis Varoufakis points out: they exploited their own to get it.
They didn’t invade Syria and steal the oil or whatever.
But yes, for now, no other choice.
[] - originally from r/GenZhou
[deleted]u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Thanks. Feel free to take and use, if it’s any use to you comrade.
[] - originally from r/GenZhou
[deleted]u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
As to the MAoists, i’m not Chinese, so i don’t know.
but it does seem like a superficial understanding of the texts: Marx, Lenin, Mao, is not unique to the west. They just took it to a different place.
IF you got it in your head that communes, and ONLY communses are socialism, then yeah, you are gonna be upset that someone pulled them down.
[fun fact: Xi rebuilt half of them [50%] already. They never mention that part.]
But communes are not socialism. They are a path to it, and one that would have worked well. In another world, one that does not have imperialists trying to kill you.
Sad fact is, China needed productive forces, and it needed it NOW.
right now, otherwise we are all dead.
So they did.
And now they are moving back in that left direction, after the sacrifices were made.
Every single time, you hear westerners complaining about ‘well how can we trust that they are gonna DO it?’ China comes through, and does it.
And if they don’t, so what?
China is China to do with as China wants.
If they decide the wanna go liberal, that’s up to them, not us.
Disappointing, sure.
End of the ML movement, probably.
But it’s their country.
Luckily, they seem to be better at this than us.
[] - originally from r/GenZhou
[deleted]u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Worse. Without the power they now have, they’d have been crushed.The US had a plan to nuke them. And what would other anti imperialist counties so, without the power of China?
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
I wrote it out of annoyance and disappointment with a particular person, but it also helped me to clarify my understanding.
The people who insist that export of capital IS imperialism, clearly have never read the book that this def comes from, because yes, that’s the heading, but the actual text goes beyond that.
Mind you, i was flat out told that if my dad in New Zealand, buys an office space in the USA, then NZ just commit imperialism… on the USA.
Yeah. That’s not what that means.
[] - originally from r/GenZhou
[deleted]u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
It’s yours.[] - originally from r/GenZhou
[deleted]u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Go nuts. It’s yours, comrade.[] - originally from r/GenZhou
Back them up with Wayback first.
u/AyyItsDylan94 - originally from r/GenZhou
Fantastic writing, immediately bookmarkedu/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Thanks. Hope it’s useful.
u/seamasthebhoy - originally from r/GenZhou
This post was very helpful. I’m just joining communist Reddit from Quora. There a lot of Maoists suggest that China is a bourgeois state that is controlled by oligarchs/capitalists.I totally understand when they suggest China is revisionist or whatever, I disagree but I can see where they’re coming from. But an oligarchy/bourgeois state? What kind of oligarchy regularly executes the super rich for offenses that aren’t even policed in the west?
Idk. Kind of seems like the whole point of a bourgeois state is letting the bourgeois do insider trading and stuff like that unabated. Maybe that’s just me.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Cheers.Imma push back a little. The whole ‘executing billionaires’ thing is only weak evidence.
Even in bourgeois dictatorships like the USA, they will execute billionaires, if need be.
The real problem with the Maoists is two fold. 1: they never read Marx. 2: They can’t think logically.
1: Marx said that a socialist state will move from a capitalist mode of production to a communist mode, and the middle ground we call socialism. So it’s not gonna go all at once, and the socialist state is gonna be ‘stamped with the birthmarks’ of capitalism. It’s a slow process. Well duh, that’s China.
2: ‘Billionaires exist!’ Yep. And? See people have this unconscious thing where they live in a DOTB and cannot imagine living any other way. So they just assume ‘Well our billionaires are evil and have undue influence, so their must too!’ Therefore they control the government, just like they do here. Like, no. How do they control the gov’t in the west? Bribes. ‘Lobbying.’ all the usual tricks. Well in China, also Vietnam etc, there is no lobbying. There’s no mechanism to do it. And if they wanna vote on shit, they gotta join the party. And there’s fuck all rich people in the CPC. So they are one voice amongst many. And if they get caught bribing people, they get kicked out, and then go to jail.
Shit really is different, even if it’s not perfect.
u/seamasthebhoy - originally from r/GenZhou
I agree with all of that!And yes, the executing billionaires thing is pretty reductive, although I’ll believe the US would execute one when I see it.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Epstein?u/seamasthebhoy - originally from r/GenZhou
Fair. He wasn’t officially a billionaire though!
u/CupcakesfromMars - originally from r/GenZhou
Doing god’s worku/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Insha’Allah
u/ttomgirl - originally from r/GenZhou
quality writing as alwaysu/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Thanks. But it’s just a repost from earlier. i just thought it made sense to put it here.
u/TheThirdNoOne - originally from r/GenZhou
o7u/Revolutionary830 - originally from r/GenZhou
Great piece.I have one question though.
You said:
“No bourgeois country could, or would do this.” (referring to poverty alleviation)
But isn’t the imperial core already rich, and couldn’t you argue that China doing a poverty alleviation is simply them buying off their working class?
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
What is the ACTUAL material difference between ‘buying them off’ and actually legit lifting them from poverty?It’s not a liberal democracy. There’s no vote for president. So there’s no point buying them off.
When you buy off whole populations, it’s called ‘good governance.’
The imperial core is rich. But the people in charge do not benefit from poverty alleviation. So it does not happen. Rather, they NEED poverty to keep the proles in line.
u/Revolutionary830 - originally from r/GenZhou- Couldn’t you argue that it is to prevent mass protests or even an insurrection?
- Maybe I’m understanding this incorrectly, but how can you a priori say that the PRC is a proletarian state? Yes, the USA has said it, but couldn’t you argue that it’s to frighten people?
u/Soyjackshate - originally from r/GenZhou
Thank you comrade.[] - originally from r/GenZhou
Hate to say it but I think this as well as the Uyghur thing just needs to let time tell us what the intentions were. I agree with this thread and I suspect it was triggered by an argument. I think confusion may be cleared as time goes on and we see the fruits of what China is doing for Africa.u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Not really. Those with vested interests will keep confusing the issue deliberately.
We know what the Uyghur intentions were, because the CPC told everyone, and so did the Uyghurs.
So either everyone there is stupid, brainwashed or lying, or you gotta take someone at their word.