Chinese Imperialism?

[bailey_187]

to what extent can Chinese investment in Africa be seen as Imperialism/Neo-Colonialism?

Is it Imperialism? Or an example of Third World Cooperation development?

[the last donut of the night]

Or an example of Third World Cooperation development?

Does that even exist in capitalism?

[red cat]

to what extent can Chinese investment in Africa be seen as Imperialism/Neo-Colonialism?

Is it Imperialism? Or an example of Third World Cooperation development?

It is definitely imperialism. China is an emerging capitalist power, so its tendency will be to develop into an imperialist one. It has targeted not only Africa, but also Latin America and South Asia.

[dar8888]

It is definitely imperialism. China is an emerging capitalist power, so its tendency will be to develop into an imperialist one. It has targeted not only Africa, but also Latin America and South Asia.

China has been Imperialist since day one. Ever heard of Tibet?

[the last donut of the night]

China has been Imperialist since day one. Ever heard of Tibet?

Not that I'm defending anything, but Tibet was taken in 1959.

The PRC was established in 1949.

Hence, not day one.

[Pirate Utopian]

China has been Imperialist since day one. Ever heard of Tibet?
Tibet was a feudal slaveholding theocracy run brutally by the Dalai Lama.
Whatever your opinion of Mao and China, I'd take it over the way the Dalai Lama ran it any day.

[dar8888]

Tibet was a feudal slaveholding theocracy run brutally by the Dalai Lama.
Whatever your opinion of Mao and China, I'd take it over the way the Dalai Lama ran it any day.

The Dalai Lama was as much a slave to the system as anyone else in Tibet. He was only a little boy when he was placed in the position. Also, whether you, or I, like feudal theocracies is not the point. To this day, most Tibetans want the Dalai Lama back. It's not our choice - it's theirs.

"Not that I'm defending anything, but Tibet was taken in 1959.
The PRC was established in 1949.
Hence, not day one."

Yes, the PRC was founded in 1949. The invasion of Tibet took place in 1950 - it was the flight of the Dalai Lama that occured in 1959.

[red cat]

The Dalai Lama was as much a slave to the system as anyone else in Tibet. He was only a little boy when he was placed in the position. Also, whether you, or I, like feudal theocracies is not the point. To this day, most Tibetans want the Dalai Lama back. It's not our choice - it's theirs.

Do you mean that it is wrong to overthrow feudal theocracies ?

Even if we assume that most Tibetans want him back now, does that mean that they supported him back then?

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not even sure if they "want him back" per se (if they do, they surely do not want back the feudal theocracy though) but one could say they do want to be independent from China...

Although that's what's usually said by pro-free tibet sources...
The issue could be more complex than how it's painted by the media on both sides.

[fatboy]

It has been a tendancy in socialist states after awhile they tend to start doing imperialism themserlves

[scarletghoul]

I think Bailey wanted peoples views on the spreading tentacles of modern China rather than the Tibet debate which is a different kettle of fish. I also am not sure about modern China's relations with the poor countries its involved in, and eagerly await the views of someone who knows more about it

PS, Tibet is a part of China, it has been for centuries, and from what I can tell the Tibetan people want to keep it that way. There's a disproportionate amount of western liberals on the "free tibet" side compared to actual Tibetans. China's policies in Tibet are far from imperialist.

[bailey_187]

It is definitely imperialism. China is an emerging capitalist power, so its tendency will be to develop into an imperialist one. It has targeted not only Africa, but also Latin America and South Asia.

How different is it to US Imperialism?

Is Africa benefiting at all?

(this is for school by the way)

[khad]

How different is it to US Imperialism?

Is Africa benefiting at all?

(this is for school by the way)
There has already been at least one riot in (IIRC) Zambia where miners were shot dead. Reportedly, the Chinese bosses were violating labor laws by paying the workers below the minimum wage there. Of course, this situation is complicated by the fact that there are also Chinese workers working for below minimum wage all over Africa as well, which is something you didn't see with the European working class in the age of High Imperialism (or, for that matter, with the well-paid American contractors hired by Halliburton).

I think the Chinese version of neoliberalism is approaching a purer form of capitalism than any which has existed previously.

Edit: Found it http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=5020

[manic expression]

The Dalai Lama was as much a slave to the system as anyone else in Tibet. He was only a little boy when he was placed in the position.
So was Puyi, so were plenty of reactionary theocrats. Who cares? Plus, it's not like he isn't a grown man who can make his own decisions, and yet he's still out there claiming some last shreds of legitimacy and rubbing elbows with every imperialist you want to name. Slave to the system my left foot, the real slaves to the system were, well, slaves. Now they are liberated. But you're right, the Dalai Lama was the real victim.


Also, whether you, or I, like feudal theocracies is not the point. To this day, most Tibetans want the Dalai Lama back. It's not our choice - it's theirs.
I'd like to see a source for that claim. And yes, it's not our choice, it's theirs, the people of the PRC. They've clearly made their choice, and you're the one questioning that choice.


Yes, the PRC was founded in 1949. The invasion of Tibet took place in 1950 - it was the flight of the Dalai Lama that occured in 1959.
And Tibet had been a part of China for centuries before then. You might as well say that Georgia or Belarus or Armenia shouldn't have been part of the Soviet Union.

[bailey_187]

So was Puyi, so were plenty of reactionary theocrats. Who cares? Plus, it's not like he isn't a grown man who can make his own decisions, and yet he's still out there claiming some last shreds of legitimacy and rubbing elbows with every imperialist you want to name. Slave to the system my left foot, the real slaves to the system were, well, slaves. Now they are liberated. But you're right, the Dalai Lama was the real victim.


I'd like to see a source for that claim. And yes, it's not our choice, it's theirs, the people of the PRC. They've clearly made their choice, and you're the one questioning that choice.


And Tibet had been a part of China for centuries before then. You might as well say that Georgia or Belarus or Armenia shouldn't have been part of the Soviet Union.

Please, stop debating Tibet in here. I need to find out about Chinese actions in Africa only.

Thanks

[Kléber]

Tibet is very much exploited by China in an imperialist way. The invasion may have been justified to throw out British influence, and slavery was certainly abolished.. but anyone who knows about US history should know, it is one thing to free an enslaved people and another to give them full political and economic equality. Those Tibetan riots a year ago were not due to CIA activity, they were due to the fact that the Tibetans have high unemployment and are treated like second-class citizens.

Chinese dynasties, representing feudal interests and at times paying attention to mercantile interests, have tried to expand and conquer neighboring territories throughout history. Chinese gov't propaganda today says there have been no wars in China since the Three Kingdoms Period :rolleyes:, but the truth is, when the country wasn't divided by civil war, Chinese armies were always trying to conquer somewhere. If China had been able to seize and super-exploit a large colonial area like the Europeans in America, the first bourgeois revolution might have happened in China. However, some problem always confronted expansionist Chinese governments. Their attempts to invade south usually met with bitter resistance; Vietnam was partially conquered several times but always liberated itself. To the southwest are huge mountain ranges which impeded army movement and supply. To the northwest there is a desert pass through which the Silk Road extended into the Middle East; the Tang Dynasty tried to conquer along this pass but gave up because it was too expensive to compete with the cavalry armies of Central Asia. The north and northeast were of course populated by nomadic peoples with huge cavalry armies that Chinese governments have usually preferred to keep out than try and conquer. And to the east, of course, is the Pacific Ocean whose size made it unlikely that China would discover America, even when they had an impressive ocean fleet in the early 1400's.

[bailey_187]

tibet is very much exploited by china in an imperialist way. The invasion may have been justified to throw out british influence, and slavery was certainly abolished.. But anyone who knows about us history should know, it is one thing to free an enslaved people and another to give them full political and economic equality. Those tibetan riots a year ago were not due to cia activity, they were due to the fact that the tibetans have high unemployment and are treated like second-class citizens.

Chinese dynasties, representing feudal interests and at times paying attention to mercantile interests, have tried to expand and conquer neighboring territories throughout history. Chinese gov't propaganda today says there have been no wars in china since the three kingdoms period :rolleyes:, but the truth is, when the country wasn't divided by civil war, chinese armies were always trying to conquer somewhere. If china had been able to seize and super-exploit a large colonial area like the europeans in america, the first bourgeois revolution might have happened in china. However, some problem always confronted expansionist chinese governments. Their attempts to invade south usually met with bitter resistance; vietnam was partially conquered several times but always liberated itself. To the southwest are huge mountain ranges which impeded army movement and supply. To the northwest there is a desert pass through which the silk road extended into the middle east; the tang dynasty tried to conquer along this pass but gave up because it was too expensive to compete with the cavalry armies of central asia. The north and northeast were of course populated by nomadic peoples with huge cavalry armies that chinese governments have usually preferred to keep out than try and conquer. And to the east, of course, is the pacific ocean whose size made it unlikely that china would discover america, even when they had an impressive ocean fleet in the early 1400's.

are you going to comment on chinese actions in africa?

[Raúl Duke]

I heard from some posters here in a previous thread about how leftists should feel about China's rise that Chinese active role in making business deals in Africa is in direct competition to that of the West. The Chinese at times make better business deals (at least the chinese company/state vis-a-vis with the government of the specific nation in Africa they're trying to do business with; the people are left out of the decision making picture) which allows 3rd world countries 'better leverage' when it comes to which business deal they would agree with. In a sense, they can now pick 'chinese imperialism' over 'western/U.S./European imperialism' as one of the options.

Mostly, unlike the west, China is out looking for natural resources for their manufacturing base. The west instead also focuses on having other nations do their manufacturing. In some sense, it's akin to the 'old form' of imperialism (although they're doing so in a fashion similar to what was done in Latin-America instead of what was done to Africa/Asia in which European powers carved up actual colonies) yet in a modern context (contract work, etc).

[RedStarOverChina]

No, being indebted to a different debtor is not the solution. The point to African countries borrowing money is in developing the infrastructure in Africa in order for it to take off.

One of the main reason Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa (minus S. Africa) failed to take off is because they end up paying all the money in service fees, and have no money left to invest in education and infrastructures. Their Western debtors are by and large, profit-seeking private financial institutions that uses debt as a weapon to plunder Africa's wealth.

The Chinese state is no angel. But the Chinese lending institutions are all state-dominated that uses loans as a diplomatic tool instead of a profit-seeking mechanism. China has provided many African countries with 0% interest loans. That has given Africa the opportunity to develop itself.

Chinese capitalists investing in Africa exploit workers, both African and Chinese ones, no doubt. I never sought to defend them in that aspect. But there is a difference between capitalists who help to industrialize countries and those who don't.


It's important to remember that, early Marxists, including Marx himself thought that imperialistic capitalism could help to industrialize third-world countries. By the time Lenin started studying Imperialism, it already became clear that Imperialism simply didn't, and didn't want to develop the third-world.

So, could China turn out to be just like the West in screwing over Africa in the end, despite the apparent development effort already invested in the continent? Yes, that is a distinct possibility.

However, I think that would only happen if China develops an imperialist, dominating presence in Africa. That's something neither African countries nor the West would like to see. Right now, it doesn't have that presence, and I think it probably won't. China has less clout in Africa than Britain or France, never mind the US. But that is already rattling the Western ruling elites, because we know how much they hate competition in terms of influence.

Like you mentioned, it's not just China in Africa now. India is competing for influence, and Brazil will no doubt join in. There is very little chance China will be the sole dominant player in Africa, the way the West had been in the past.


Tanzania after de-colonization launched a heroic and revolutionary effort at achieving economic autonomy (It's something worth reading about). It was the closest thing Africa ever had to a socialist revolution.

However, it was largely abandoned because, IMO, the infrastructure needed for higher-standards of living was not present.

It only confirmed Karl Marx's suspicion that Capitalism is a necessary stage in development, as Euro-centric as his view may be. States borrowing money has been a essential part of every capitalist industrialization process, from Britain and the US to the Soviet Union and China. It's essential in building up infrastructure in Africa.

The issue at hand is, whether the loan suffocates the indebted with high interest: the ills of usury is known to all. Moreover, it's also about how African states should seize the opportunities brought by China's rise, and manage their debt.
Copied from previous discussion.

[khad]

I like how a thread about economic development and labor in contemporary Africa gets pipelined into bullshit liberal definitions of imperialism for the feudal age.

A lot of you folks don't know jack shit and apparently don't care about the situation in Tibet, about Chinese agribusiness and capitalist land development driving farmers and herders from their land and turning them into unemployed migrant workers. Or about how the neoliberal model of development has supplanted the Maoist nationality-oriented model of development.

But this Learning thread is about Africa. Keep to the topic or posts are going to get trashed.

[Kléber]

are you going to comment on chinese actions in africa? Seems like i got a lil carried away there. and then forgot what i had intended to write

I was going to say that Chinese trade links with East Africa go back not just to the 1960's, but all the way to the voyages of Zheng He. And Zheng was arguably an imperialist, he landed and intervened in a Lankan succession dispute to support a pro-Chinese claimant..

http://ikhtiar.org/library/Zheng%20He%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia_files/250px-MalindiGiraffe.jpg

And also to point out the irony, that Germany was in an analogous position to China 100 years ago, it was considered the "factory of the world" and was shut out of the imperialist game by the larger powers, and one of the few areas German imperialism tried to get involved in, before deciding on a path of continental conquest, was East Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_East_Africa). Also like Imperial Germany, the PRC is trying to build a large submarine fleet, although they've finally started on some carriers.

As for whether it is imperialist or not, I heard the Chinese managers in Africa tend to live in gated communities and are just as bad as Western companies in the third world in terms of labor relations. Are there any governments in Africa where the Chinese bourgeoisie could be said to have a controlling interest?