So essentially your reply is to ignore analyzing why the US acts in the way it does materially, and why the PRC acts the way it does materially, and instead analyze based on vibes and some deterministic idea that Chinese people will turn to conquest even if it benefits them more to continue down their current path?
This is absurd. Analyze why things happen like we have, otherwise you have nothing.
I am analyzing why things happen, you just don’t like it. The analysis is rooted in looking at the entirety of their history. Materially, they have been just as imperialist as anyone else. My point is that looking at their imperialist history and saying things will be different this time based on vibes is foolish.
They lost out to bigger imperialists in the 19th century. Now, they’re recovering and behaving exactly as you’d expect if they’re still imperialist, just with less power (but growing).
That’s a link to a wikipedia segment saying a Western Imperialist think tank has accused China of slowly going bit by bit to get larger gains than had they gone all at once. That isn’t proof of the PRC hyper-exploiting the Global South for Super Profits via the export of Capital, nor proof of anything. It’s an accusation from a biased source.
You are clearly rejecting the definition of Imperialisn davel, I, and other Marxists use. Whether it’s intentional or not I don’t know, but if it is, why have a conversation with us? You haven’t proven that the PRC is Imperialist, just that it acts in its own interests, which we all agree about. Davel and I have just pointed out that the structure of the economic system of the PRC means it is moving to uplift the Global South so they can buy more from the PRC, rather than bomb them to death and hyper-exploit their workers like the West does.
I’m using a common definition of imperialism. If you wish to redefine it so that it can’t be applied to your favorite imperialists, you need to justify that redefinition. To me, you haven’t. Here’s Wikipedia’s definition. Whether or not you agree with it isn’t really the point, it’s a common definition and if you want to use it in a different meaning, you should make that clear upfront and/or justify the new usage:
Imperialism is maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire.
I guess you could call that intentional? Intentionally doing the thing that makes sense, i.e. using the common definition, which is kind of a weird use of the word. At any rate, I’m having a conversation with you because you’ve been giving thoughtful replies, as much as we disagree with each other. This is the sort of discussion that is actually worth having. As hard as it is to talk about these things over text, I think this has actually been productive. I wouldn’t have known that you’re using a different definition of imperialism otherwise, for example. That is one of the hardest things when trying to communicate, is using the same words but talking past each other.
The article btw doesn’t just reference western think tanks. India for example, has accused China of the same behavior. Many of their neighbors have accused them of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbage_tactics as well. I also edited the link above to point at the main article, instead of a section that links to it.
I guess as long as we can agree that the PRC is acting in its own interests. I just have less faith in humanity than you do, I guess.
I already explained that what you use as “Imperialism” and what davel and I have been explaining is different, and I explained that the Marxist definition is better because it can accurately explain why the US is working in the way it is and why China is not. Even if you wish to claim the Marxist definition is “Extraction” or some other term, China still isn’t Imperialist by your definition, because it isn’t advantageous to be!
Again, to simplify:
Davel and I are explaining that it is in China’s material intetestd to mutually cooperate with the Global South because a strong Global Soutb can buy more goods from the PRC, which focuses on exporting commodities.
Similarly, the US’ material interests are dominating the Global South because it focuses on exporting Capital.
You have no counter to this so far, other than you don’t “trust” China because in the past, under an entirely different Mode of Production, China has been Imperialist. This is a weaker explanation than ours, because our analysis focuses on mechanics while yours focuses on ideas.
Secondly, India has pivoted towards increased mutual cooperation with the PRC and has stepped down on its claims of aggression, and turned more away from the US. That point no longer really stands.
I don’t necessarily have faith in “humanity,” but economic systems and material interests. China has no material reason to turn to Imperialism (or “Extraction”) while the US does and has. Simple as that.
So essentially your reply is to ignore analyzing why the US acts in the way it does materially, and why the PRC acts the way it does materially, and instead analyze based on vibes and some deterministic idea that Chinese people will turn to conquest even if it benefits them more to continue down their current path?
This is absurd. Analyze why things happen like we have, otherwise you have nothing.
I am analyzing why things happen, you just don’t like it. The analysis is rooted in looking at the entirety of their history. Materially, they have been just as imperialist as anyone else. My point is that looking at their imperialist history and saying things will be different this time based on vibes is foolish.
They were Imperialist, and now they are not. What changed?
They’re still imperialist, they just don’t have the power to effect it as well as they have historically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics#China’s_salami_slice_strategy
They lost out to bigger imperialists in the 19th century. Now, they’re recovering and behaving exactly as you’d expect if they’re still imperialist, just with less power (but growing).
That’s a link to a wikipedia segment saying a Western Imperialist think tank has accused China of slowly going bit by bit to get larger gains than had they gone all at once. That isn’t proof of the PRC hyper-exploiting the Global South for Super Profits via the export of Capital, nor proof of anything. It’s an accusation from a biased source.
You are clearly rejecting the definition of Imperialisn davel, I, and other Marxists use. Whether it’s intentional or not I don’t know, but if it is, why have a conversation with us? You haven’t proven that the PRC is Imperialist, just that it acts in its own interests, which we all agree about. Davel and I have just pointed out that the structure of the economic system of the PRC means it is moving to uplift the Global South so they can buy more from the PRC, rather than bomb them to death and hyper-exploit their workers like the West does.
I’m using a common definition of imperialism. If you wish to redefine it so that it can’t be applied to your favorite imperialists, you need to justify that redefinition. To me, you haven’t. Here’s Wikipedia’s definition. Whether or not you agree with it isn’t really the point, it’s a common definition and if you want to use it in a different meaning, you should make that clear upfront and/or justify the new usage:
I guess you could call that intentional? Intentionally doing the thing that makes sense, i.e. using the common definition, which is kind of a weird use of the word. At any rate, I’m having a conversation with you because you’ve been giving thoughtful replies, as much as we disagree with each other. This is the sort of discussion that is actually worth having. As hard as it is to talk about these things over text, I think this has actually been productive. I wouldn’t have known that you’re using a different definition of imperialism otherwise, for example. That is one of the hardest things when trying to communicate, is using the same words but talking past each other.
The article btw doesn’t just reference western think tanks. India for example, has accused China of the same behavior. Many of their neighbors have accused them of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbage_tactics as well. I also edited the link above to point at the main article, instead of a section that links to it.
I guess as long as we can agree that the PRC is acting in its own interests. I just have less faith in humanity than you do, I guess.
I already explained that what you use as “Imperialism” and what davel and I have been explaining is different, and I explained that the Marxist definition is better because it can accurately explain why the US is working in the way it is and why China is not. Even if you wish to claim the Marxist definition is “Extraction” or some other term, China still isn’t Imperialist by your definition, because it isn’t advantageous to be!
Again, to simplify:
Davel and I are explaining that it is in China’s material intetestd to mutually cooperate with the Global South because a strong Global Soutb can buy more goods from the PRC, which focuses on exporting commodities.
Similarly, the US’ material interests are dominating the Global South because it focuses on exporting Capital.
You have no counter to this so far, other than you don’t “trust” China because in the past, under an entirely different Mode of Production, China has been Imperialist. This is a weaker explanation than ours, because our analysis focuses on mechanics while yours focuses on ideas.
Secondly, India has pivoted towards increased mutual cooperation with the PRC and has stepped down on its claims of aggression, and turned more away from the US. That point no longer really stands.
I don’t necessarily have faith in “humanity,” but economic systems and material interests. China has no material reason to turn to Imperialism (or “Extraction”) while the US does and has. Simple as that.