Skip Navigation

Remote View

GenZhouArchive @lemmygrad.ml

archive_bot @lemmygrad.ml

4y ago

No, China is not fucking imperialist you twit.

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://medium.com/@rainershea612/catagorically-debunking-the-claim-that-china-is-imperialist-a9ae7b280a44

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2020/06/09/chinas-debt-relief-for-africa-emerging-deliberations/

https://chinaafricaproject.com/2019/12/18/deborah-brautigam-debunks-the-chinese-debt-trap-theory-in-new-research-paper/

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?twitterimpression=true

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/170319/news/hambantota-port-deal-two-major-clauses-to-appease-critics-233515.html

https://rainershea.com/f/china-isn%E2%80%99t-imperialist-it%E2%80%99s-the-great-ally-of-global-socialism

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://qz.com/1391770/the-anxious-chorus-around-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-doesnt-reflect-african-realities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObefKNUEtKg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03l3Ra4bLA

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2020.1807318

The video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QejOE8WfVoU

135 comments

u/Ambedextrose - originally from r/GenZhou
Well said
- u/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/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/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
https://www.academia.edu/43088455/IS_CHINA_S_DEVELOPMENT_DIPLOMACY_IN_HORN_OF_AFRICA_TRANSFORMING_INTO_DEBT_TRAP_DIPLOMACY_AN_EVALUATION
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.

[deleted] - 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.

[deleted] - 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.
  
  [deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
  [deleted]
- 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.

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.

[deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
[deleted]
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  It's yours.
  
  [deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
  [deleted]

u/AyyItsDylan94 - originally from r/GenZhou
Fantastic writing, immediately bookmarked
- u/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/TheThirdNoOne - originally from r/GenZhou
o7

u/ttomgirl - originally from r/GenZhou
quality writing as always
- u/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/CupcakesfromMars - originally from r/GenZhou
Doing god’s work
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  Insha'Allah

u/Soyjackshate - originally from r/GenZhou
Thank you comrade.

u/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?

[deleted] - 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.

u/Kulaklover - originally from r/GenZhou
This is all egregious & depends on the precursor that China is at present a DoTP, when it was in its modern conception, founded on the grounds of a petty bourgeois/bourgeois nationalist revolution.
A DoTP ostensibly can’t exist when 2 classes are meant to “collaborate” or “cede concessions” to one another. As long as bourgeois social relations are present in China (which they are) then the state serves the bourgeoisie in up-keeping this social formation.
Read the tax in kind and realize that state control over certain industries isn’t even remotely socialist, nor is the maintenance of a DoTP possible without the eradication of the bourgeois class and an international communist takeover.
Some other works that might be of value
Anti-Dühring
Capital vol I
Mao’s China, a certified copy of bourgeois society
Origin of the family, state & private property
This is apparently an educational subreddit so I hope I will be met with a response and not a ban.
- [deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
  [removed]
  
  u/Kulaklover - originally from r/GenZhou
  State control does not ‘facilitate’ socialism. The whole reason Lenin had put in the NEP was in order to industrialize & develop Russia further in order to then put it in state hands in order to mediate state resources with accordance to proletarian control. What this depended on was the fact that the proletariat had A. Seized complete political power B. Had the support & backing of an international communist revolution (due to globalization and the socialization of markets). The proletariat had in part A been partly unsuccessful as the proletarian dictatorship was being corroded by the existence of the peasantry & their petty bourgeois interests. In part B the international revolution had failed with the defeat of German communists & the lack of a revolutionary catalyst elsewhere in the imperial core.
  China still has private property, states such as Denmark have state ownership that rivals that of China’s. Meaning that not only has the state not fully seized the means of production, it hasn’t even done so with the 2 precursors of proletarian control & international support. A proletarian dictatorship at the stage of development China is in would aim to destroy the bourgeois state and replace it with a proletarian one. But as China is now harping on a class collaborationist route whilst permitting societal formations that allow for capital accumulation, it is by no means a proletarian dictatorship.
  The fact that bourgeois exist in China contains a plethora of things in that simple fact. That class division exists, that bourgeois social relations are maintained, that commodity production is still the generalized form of production, that the state must inevitably maintain the present social formation that ends up suiting the interests of one class, and due to the fact that China still maintains what can be called a capitalist system. Means it is in essence, capitalist. Just because China has done remarkable things for a bourgeois nation (poverty alleviation, high speed rail, government compensation) does not mean it is now on the road to socialism, but that the type of capitalism that exists there is a more concessionary one.
  One thing that’s oft neglected is the need for internationalism. If China was even a DoTP to begin with the lack of international support would result in the different classes fighting for power and the proletariat either being forced into submission by the need to industrialize or/and by the global market.
  The works I linked also aren’t empty. The tax in kind puts the NEP and it’s goals into context (also including the role of state control, which Stalin distorted as an ideological bandaid to his policies). Anti Duhring goes over how capitalism can still persist without capitalists in one of its chapters (surprise). The work about Mao’s China deals with the origins of the so called communist revolution in China. The origin of private property, family & the state goes over precisely what it’s title insinuates, and the part about the state is especially necessary to understand now, as it (the state) can never serve as a neutral arbiter over society.
  In saying this I’m not here to say “China bad” or “China should be bombed”. Communists should support bourgeois revolutions in backwards countries, but the key here is to recognize them as bourgeois.
  Also, I said that state control isn’t anything remotely socialist, as in it gives no indication whether or whether not China is “moving” towards socialism.
  You say I ‘cite’ no evidence (we are discussing things at a theoretical level here). You can point out at one of the points I am making and I can give you the reasoning of it.

u/the_nerd_1474 - originally from r/GenZhou
Question: Why is territorial aggression not considered imperialism?
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  Same reason that shooting a dude, is not war.
  War is a specific category of violence.
  
  Imperialism is capitalism.
  But it's also a specific type of capitalism.
  But let's say it's not.
  Let's say China COULD be imperialist.
  
  Imperialism is not conquest, nor is it warfare, or even capturing territory.
  Otherwise the soviets in WW2 were imperialist, because they captured territory.
  
  A wheel is not a car, it's a part of one.
  Imperialism is not taking territory.
  But taking territory CAN be part of imperialism.
  
  Thing is, even if the USA never bombed anyone, they would still be imperialist, simply by buying up or crippling economically, many countries.
  
  Well the reverse is true.
  If say, China invaded a populated island in the SCS, would that be imperialism?
  Depends. WHY did they do it?
  If they did it to capture valuable resources, then yewah, probably.
  If they do it for military reasons, like driving off invaders, or to build defences or something, then no.
  
  u/TowarzyszKowalski - originally from r/GenZhou
  If they do it for military reasons, like driving off invaders, or to build defences or something, then no.
  Why is that so?
  
  u/the_nerd_1474 - originally from r/GenZhou
  Well, China invaded India in the '60s and annexed a part of what was then the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
  Context:
  The area, known today as Aksai Chin and administered by Xinjiang, is largely uninhabitable, but it was a part of the Jammu and Kashmir princely state under the British Raj. The Brits forged a treaty in 1899, creating the Macartney-Macdonald line which gave Aksai Chin to China, and a Chinese representative was supposed to be present at the meeting. The whole ordeal was carried out as China showed interest in Aksai Chin, and is it suspected to be due to Russian instigation. Thing is, imperial China never sent a representative, nor did they ever make a statement about the proposal. Due to imperial China's lack of response, the Brits reverted to the 1897 Ardagh-Johnson line, created from an 1865 survey which determined that Aksai Chin was traditionally Indian. China maintains that the decision to not send an ambassador is representative of consent, while India claims the opposite.
  The state of Jammu and Kashmir was annexed into India without any democratic consent from the Kashmiris, and no referendum has been held till date. Following riots, protests, terrorist activities, military insurgence, and the 1947 Indo-Pakistan war, Jammu and Kashmir is claimed in its entirety by India, while Pakistan recognises China's claims and claims the rest of Jammu and Kashmir.
  The region is important to China as it has strategical significance since it connects Xizang (Tibet) and Xinjiang. In 2015, Huoshaoyun, a large lead-zinc deposit was discovered in the area, and it is the largest metal deposits in all of Asia. Since that, they have militarised the area further and initiated small skirmishes with the Indian defence force.
  Now you tell me, is this imperialism?
  EDIT: Because I remembered part of the story wrongly

u/horn-kneeee - originally from r/GenZhou
berta cáceres got merked by a chinese water company for opposing them stealing honduran land
- u/Feliks_Dzierzinski - originally from r/GenZhou
  This Chinese company sure was clever, hiring American mercenaries working for American companies enforcing American economic interests in Honduras to kill a person opposing American companies. Not quite sure what they got out of it, but hey, China bad, amirite?
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  berta cáceres
  Strange, notoriously CIA driven wikipedia, famed for hating on China at ANY excuse, says it was US backed military. No mention of China.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BertaC%C3%A1ceres
  
  u/horn-kneeee - originally from r/GenZhou
  she got merked by mercenaries funded by sinohydro
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  And?
  Finish the sentence: 'Therefore...'
  
  u/horn-kneeee - originally from r/GenZhou
  therefore china is imperialist for stealing indigenous land from central america and killing a protestor of it

u/romulusnr - originally from r/GenZhou
So, imperialism is not about building an empire and exerting hegemony?
Maybe someone can illustrate how this definition would qualify or disqualify the Roman Empire.
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  No, it's not. This is about a specific form of imperialist capitalism. Rome was not capitalist.
  Luckily, no AES fits your description either.

u/bagelsselling - originally from r/GenZhou
China fits the bill of an Imperialist power all the way.
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
Yes. 24 out of the 25 largest companies in China are state-owned and are allowed to price fix
(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
Yes. China's largest banks are state owned such as the Bank of China, the China development Bank, the China construction Bank and the Industrial and Commercial Bank Of China (which happens to be the largest bank in the world) ect
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
Yes
(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves,
Yes, Chinese banks have branches across the world. China has huge construction projects in the third world
and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
Yes, Even though outright colonialism today is not as common it is still possible to create spheres of influence out of countries now dependent on your capital which China has done.
(Quotations are from Lenin's Imperialism the highest stage of Capitalism)
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  Wow. I was really hoping there was something I'd overlooked that I could work on and strengthen my case. But as I predicted when I saw the notification: same specific crap I debunked in the op.
  Literally I have nothing to say to you other than 'read the op.'
  
  u/bagelsselling - originally from r/GenZhou
  Part 1
  Ok, since you really really wanted it, I responded to every single sentence. Satisfied
  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
  Ok, good. You have the 5 points
  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.’
  in China 24 out of the 25 largest companies are state-owned and they are allowed to price fix
  “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.
  In China the bourgeois line has won out. For example, recently China announced it will not move away from the market economy. Another victory for the bourgeois. That isn't proletariat in the slightest
  The CPC openly embraces class collaboration and goes as far to recognize bourgeois as workers and accept them into the party. It is no party of the Proletariat
  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.
  In China the monopolies are controlled by the state. It is happening. (for example massive State companies can price fix)
  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.
  The biggest banks in China are state-owned, they work with State industry. this is the perfect example of what Lenin is talking about
  Not only do the above issues apply from [1], but in PRC, the banks are state owned.
  [Exactly, see above]
  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.
  A bourgeois State having a bank is not money in the hands of the people or whatever
  
  u/bagelsselling - originally from r/GenZhou
  Here's a response to what you wrote (not that it debunks China fitting Lenin's analysis)
  So why does this apply or not apply to China? Simple: it’s not a bourgeoise state.
  It is.
  The rich do not control the government, there is no mechanism for lobbying, as there is in the west.
  They are accepted in the party as honorary worker's and their line dominates, for example they recently announced that they will not be moving away from market economy, another victory for the bourgeois line.
  There is no control mechanism, short of outright bribery, and the CPC takes that shit real serious.
  And? The monopolies work through the state
  So this is more of the same. The banks do the corrupt, power grabbing monopoly thing, but by playing with finance, not production.
  The largest bank in the world is Chinese and state owned like 24 out of the 25 other largest companies in China. The bank and production have merged.
  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.
  Lol, a bourgeois state with a bank is not special
  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.
  You sure? https://www.journalstandard.com/opinion/20200327/beijings-permanent-bailout-machine-why-chinas-industries-never-fail
  If they fuck up really badly, they get executed. That’s not what happens to oligarchs.
  Nazi Germany executed billionaires too, I don't suppose that makes Nazi Germany not Imperialist?
  III. EXPORT OF CAPITAL
  ...
  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…
  It's the export of finance capital.
  China IS exporting capital.
  Finance Capital specifically but yeah
  It IS building roads, ports, railways etc.
  Hmmm I wonder if Lenin talks about building railways in backward countries in his book???
  (I already have the Page open so let me drop this quote)
  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.
  So, yeah
  All of that is true.
  Ok, so are we done here?
  Colonies.
  And? How many countries have colonies nowadays? Is Sweden not Imperialist? Where are Sweden's colonies?
  Imperialism creates dependent Nations, that is what points four and five mean
  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.
  China is nice big big chungus wholesome imperialism? I don't care, I'm against imperialism period.
  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.
  Read the book please please read the book
  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.
  Ok? And? Forgiving debts makes you not Imperialist?
  China doesn't need poor little countries to pay off their debt it's not reliant off of it. They are there for the resource extraction. Look at this https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/730223192655790144/820361378316550204/Screenshot_20210309-133236.png
  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.
  They create dependent countries just the same.
  This is because China is building up those countries to sell them stuff. Not to extract their mineral wealth, or whatever.
  They are there to extract mineral wealth as I have shown above but you were right they are also there to exploit the markets. Chinese capitalism has reached its highest stage and has become overripe, it needs foreign markets to expand.
  Anyone making the argument that capital export OF ANY TYPE = Imperialism, has not read the fucking book.
  You're correct here. What is imperialism however is the export of finance capital. Which China does.
  Ignoring that China is not capitalist,
  It is. It has the capitalist mode of production
  they are NOT dividing the world into sections that they can rule or extract from.
  They are creating a series of dependent Nations, so yes they are.
  People don't vote for Xi
  Social democracy without the democracy
  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.
  How is this relevant?
  No bourgeois country could, or would do this.
  there are plenty of poverty alleviation campaigns in other capitalist countries.
  This is not socialism. But it is what socialism is FOR.
  ??? if poverty alleviation and less corruption is all you want I think you're looking for social democracy but whatever.
  We want to abolish the present state of things, to emancipate the Proletariat. Not to create red capitalism and red imperialism. That is what socialism is "for"

u/commrademcmasters - originally from r/GenZhou
I mean fine if it’s not Imperialism it’s something else along those lines and it’s not good
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  Not that either. Changing the label, does not change what's in the box.
  China is doing anti imperialism.
  
  u/commrademcmasters - originally from r/GenZhou
  I don’t know if everyone is doing irony but just because it’s something the west doesn’t like doesnt mean it’s automatically good

u/Detox1ng - originally from r/GenZhou
lmao just come to China and live without speaking English I dare you
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  How is this relevant please?
  
  u/Detox1ng - originally from r/GenZhou
  if you spent so much time writing an essay arguing how China is pushing "true" socialism why don't you try experiencing it first hand like a real Chinese? China's system is far from socialism, it is authoritarian capitalism from top to bottom.

u/RecoveringGrocer - originally from r/GenZhou
CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION AND MONOPOLIES...
"all major companies have a CPC cadre on board, to watchdog them."
FINANCE CAPITAL AND THE FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY...
"in the hands of the people, via the state."
Well, I certainly don't see any concentration of production or the chance for oligarchy here, at all!
EXPORT OF CAPITAL...
Oh.. so this sign of imperialism does fit China you say... but that doesn't count cause... here are some other texts!
- u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
  but that doesn't count cause... here are some other texts!
  And what are the arguments in those texts? And are those texts from the book that DEFINES imperialism?
  Are you going to at least PRETEND to argue in good faith?
  Every single modern dictator was a man, and wore pants. You are wearing pants. you therefore fit one of the criteria of a dictator, like Hitler. Is this a meaningful measure? No.
  Why not?
  Same issue in the post.
  
  u/RecoveringGrocer - originally from r/GenZhou
  So, by the book's definition, China can't be imperialist. Got it. Well, that's a relief! I'm not at all worried.
  Good thing corruption, consolidation of power, and oligarchy only apply if you're a capitalist country! Or maybe I just need to read the book to understand.
  "This is because China is building up those countries to sell them stuff. Not to extract their mineral wealth, or whatever."
  Okay if you say so!
- u/Denntarg - originally from r/GenZhou
  Oh.. so this sign of imperialism does fit China you say
  This sign fits most of the globe. Capitalism has evolved in the past 100 years to say the least.

135 comments