this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
38 points (91.3% liked)
Asklemmy
52068 readers
410 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not talking about the secondary aspects of imperialism such as cultural imperialism, but the active role of financial domination of the global south to extract super-profits, a theory of imperialism as old as John A. Hobson (though refined by Lenin and economists beyind Lenin today).
What is it that you believe imperialism to be that doesn't include the active expropriation of wealth from the global south through domination?
Mostly classical imperialism was taking the sovereignty of governance away from inhabitants of the country, i.e. taking over the legislative, executive and judicative powers.
You could argue that coercion is a kind of governance, but I'm not convinced.
If you argue that this is imperialism, is what China is doing with the west – asserting dominance through soft power projection and outbidding/underbidding local production efforts – imperialism aswell?
Is China imperialist?
You're confusing the methods by which imperialism is maintained in older, formal measures with the actual practice of imperialism. Not only do NATO countries exert hard and soft power to keep the global south in the underdevelopment trap, they also benefit massively from this unequal relationship. A huge amount of Germany's social safety nets are funded this way, in fact, effectively subsidizing lifestyles for the working class in order to suppress revolutionary fervor.
China is not imperialist, no. China is more effective at production than western countries that tended to resort largely to outsourcing production and relying on financial domination rather than raw production (though Germany is more industrialized than most western countries). China in fact is undermining imperialism by serving as an alternative to western imperialism, instead focusing on equal exchange and win-win development. It's why countries that stagnated and underdeveloped under western imperialism actually are beginning to break free via trade with China and inclusion in BRI.
This is causing a crisis in the imperial core, and a sweeping wave of far-right reaction. Now that these countries can no longer coast on the spoils of their plunder as effectively, austerity measures are being brought home to cover cost, and millitarization is ramping up because Europe is finding itself demoted from vassal to periphery in the context of the larger US Empire (itself also dying due to the decay in imperialism).
You can't say NATO is imperialist due to soft power, trade and structural dependence while claiming China isn't imperialist because it doesn't use classical political domination (like I argued for the EU). Either you include economic hierarchy and asymmetry or you don't.
"Underdevelopment traps" are exactly what China is trying to create. They don't eliminate dependencies, but reorganise it around Chinese capital, logistics, standards and demand. That's still an unequal relationship, only replacing Western capital with Chinese capital.
I won't discuss this definition of imperialism further as you clearly have an agenda which paints all "Western" countries as imperialists while only applying the definitions of imperialism to them, but not the rest of the world. Feel free to write about inequalities and exploitation with me, but please try to not be partisan.
I somewhat agreed to some points you made, e.g. the exploitation of the global south being a bad thing, and much of EUs wealth being based on economic domination, but your rhetoric shows that this is where our common ground starts and ends at the same time.
I'm not saying EU and NATO are saints, especially since the EU does atrocious things at our borders, and supports war and famine, but I won't go down the rabbit hole further arguing selective definitions of imperialism. This is simply making ideological exceptions for the sake of the argument.
I say NATO is a tool of imperialism because NATO countries super-exploit the global south for super-profits, and practice unequal exchange, establish hegemony, etc. This super-exploitation via finance-capital is what imperialism is, period. NATO is merely the hard power to protect it. China doesn't underdevelop the countries it trades with, nor does it practice unequal exchange, simple as that.
You can claim this, but it has no basis in reality. Western countries have been trying for decades to project their sins onto China to scare global south countries away from BRI, BRICS, etc. China isn't developing hegemony, and again, doesn't practice unequal exchange nor financial plunder. China forgives countless loans, its interests are towards multipolarity and ending US (and by extension European) hegemony.
My agenda is that I'm a communist, seeking an end to imperialism. If we apply the definitions of imperialism equally, globally, then it's quite simple: the US Empire is the world empire, with Europe and other "westernized* countries like Israel, Australia, etc as vassals. China is not a participant in imperialism, but instead is undermining it, and this is clear because countries that have been underdeveloped for centuries under European domination are flourishing via mutual cooperation with China. The forces are different and thus the results are different.
Westerners do tend to accept personal guilt, but tend to not accept that other countries can simply be better. This kind of western exceptionalism is an aspect of western cultural hegemony, but as material reality continues to develop the contradictions make themselves more naked and obvious.
I'm not selective with how I apply the definition of imperialism, I'm honest with it, which is why I can say that the west is imperialist while China is not. I don't argue for the sake of argument, but because I wish to end imperialism forever and establish socialism (as China has already done).
I can't reply to all of your comments, but you're often so on point, I love it.
Thanks, comrade! 🫡
But where did I say China and the West are equal? I didn't even pass any judgement.
You can't compare whole countries objectively, it always depends on your values and criteria. I just asked for clarification on the initial statements made by Cowbee.
You can claim this, but it has no basis in reality. Can you prove it?
You're claiming I'm exceptionalist while being exceptionalist yourself? That's quite the stretch. I simply said G20 countries all employ some degree of anti social and anti human practices without exceptions. Maybe focus and methods differ but in the end it comes down to keep the majority of people down for the super rich to profit.
I never said any of this is less bad just because "Western" countries do it. The only one claiming there's exceptions and that one country is somehow a bastion against oppression in this thread is you.
OK, lol, should've read this first before answering. No, they haven't. China just replicates the power structures and elitism in a slightly different flavor (the CPC instead of e.g. US Democrats/Republicans).
You made the unbacked claim of "Chinese imperialism." The onus is on you to prove it. However, it's trivial to find evidence backing up China's anti-imperialist role:
The CPC punishing Chinese landlords for improper treatment of Africans, mass arresting the landlords, passing reforms, and apologizing to the African Union
China has forgiven over 10 billion in foreign debt
Belt-Road Initiative: An Anti-thesis of Colonialism
Evo Morales speaks on claims of "Chinese imperialism
Five Imperialist Myths About China's Role in Africa
Is China a Better Partner for Africa than Europe and the West?
Challenging US Imperialism with Chinese Multilateralism
The Fallacy of Denouncing Both Sides of the US-China Conflict
And many, many more. It's no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being "no better" than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.
The key difference is that China is socialist, isn't dominated by financial capital, and isn't a part of the global north that has established imperialism and perpetuates it to this day. China's wealth comes from China, not from plunder.
I already knew you weren't a socialist due to the way you see imperialism, but this is incredibly far from the truth. The working class is in control of the state, and public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, including finance. You don't have to trust the government, you can trust the people themselves. The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
China does have billionaires, yes. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principle aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn't been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People's Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn't steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing's faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized:
Deng's plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China's rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a "love/hate" relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC's gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
I read all my comments again and no, I didn't. At least I can't see where I did. I simply disagreed with your definition of imperialism and noted that the definition I disagree with would fit China aswell. I'm of the opinion neither the EU nor Germany nor China are purely imperialist in my understanding of the word, apart from the aspects I already stated. This is basically an appeal to purity by myself, but I know I'm being pedantic and that's fine with me.
I never claimed the US wasn't imperialist, or that China was imperialist, I just disagreed with your initial claim Germany is participating directly in imperialism, while they aren't, in my opinion. If your opinion differs, that's fine, but stop trying to misrepresent my actual arguments. 🙄
If we're going by the burden of proof laying on the initial commenter: the onus is on you to prove what you said initially.
Your definition of imperialism is one nobody actually uses, though, you're confusing some of the measures taken for colonialism and whitewashing the real means by which the west forces austerity, coups resistance, and plants compradors in subject states to this day. Even if I decided that you can keep the word itself and we can call the economic plunder that Germany, the US, and the entire west commits "plundering," you still haven't really tackled that. If Germany depends on plundering and China does not, then that should automatically disqualify Germany from being "fair and equal."
Let's hope for the best! Currently it looks like there's a single party system devoid of meaningful opposition and capitalism is running rampant as long as it serves the party's interests, but maybe they'll eventually become a real democracy.
Inevitably, this will lead to de-globalisation and I think this can be a good thing, as long as the world powers including China finally do something about climate change and other man-made horrors.
Thanks for all of the links, you did great work and provided interesting food for thought. I looked at some of them and choose to not engage further with this. I don't really understand where you're coming from as you refuted points I didn't even make – like equating the existence of billionaires with the absence of socialism and similarly, conflating outsourcing as the single criterion for imperialism.
I disagree but you have nice graphs, I hope China keeps developing into the right direction.
China is already democratic. The fact that it has a unitary socialist democracy rather than a liberal, multi-party democracy does not mean that they are not ruled by the majority. They practice Whole Process People's Democracy, a form of democracy heavily reliant on the Mass Line. Further, they are socialist, not capitalist, private property itself is not capitalism, nor is said private property "running rampant," but instead is relegated to the small and medium secondary industries.
To the contrary, China is fostering genuine globalization and is taking dramatic climate action, including combatting desertification and providing cheap solar panels to the global south.
I covered all the usual bases liberals use when declaring China isn't socialist. The point on outsourcing is that you previously tried to claim China does "the exact same things" as the west, so I drew a hard line between them.
They will, thanks to their comprehensively democratic system and the mechanisms fueling positive change in China.
But I'm neither a liberal nor declaring China isn't doing some kind of socialism. It's not a socialism I personally like but that's my preference, I prefer the so called concordance democracy over a party system in general. The only country I know who are doing this often is Switzerland, but they have other issues (like high cost of living and xenophobia/lack of diversity).
Your framing of socialism is very liberal, such as conflating it with taxation in the boundaries of capitalism. If you don't explicitly state what you are, I can only make assumptions, and thus cover my own bases. Switzerland for example is not socialist, but instead capitalist, and funds its safety nets through imperialism (same as Germany). Further, China is closer to a consensus-based democracy than Switzerland is due to the nature of the capitalist system in Switzerland, so I don't really see your issue with China.
I didn't state Switzerland is purely socialist, but that I prefer concordance democracy as a subtype of socialist democracy, which is the prevalent in Switzerland, in contrast to the type of socialism prevalent in China.
Obviously China is consensus based as there is only a single political party. But China does not employ concordance democracy, which I prefer to a single party system.
Can you please also define what "liberal" means to you?
China has 8 sub-parties that help guide state policy, they just don't have equal footing to the CPC.
As for liberalism, by that I mean the kind of competition-focused, individualist, private-property supporting ideology backing capitalism. Liberal democracy focuses on competing parties all representing capitalist interests, which creates disunity instead of cohesion.
But, if I dont mangle the definition of imperialism to support my stance, the foreign country is better than mine and that's illegal