"China is not an imperialist country"

[HEAD ICE]

Yes, this has been said before on this forum. Despite the fact that capitalist class relations exist in China and capitalist property is protected by violence through the state, despite the large scale export of finance capital, despite the extraction of surplus value of labor from foreign countries, despite arming and fueling military conflicts, China is not 'imperialist' because it is run by a 'workers state'. What China needs, they say, is a 'political revolution' to bring China into the proletarian fold again, to heal it's "contradictions." News flash: every single capitalist country needs a political revolution where the state apparatus is dismantled before socialism can be built. When the state exists against the interests of the working class, as in Soviet Union and China and the United States, a political revolution is immediately on the table.

However, that was merely an introduction to this fine little map, detailing all the foreign investments chinese capital has been up to for the past few years. Oh, and it is interactive! Enjoy:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/20/oil-energy-minerals-business-global-2000-10-china-investment-tracker.html

[bailey_187]

i think the idea of an imperialist power outside of Europe upsets people

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There's a difference between a political revolution and a social revolution. When folks call for a political revolution in a "deformed workers state," they're calling for political change while leaving the economy intact.

[HEAD ICE]

There's a difference between a political revolution and a social revolution. When folks call for a political revolution in a "deformed workers state," they're calling for political change while leaving the economy intact.

Well, that will get into other areas namely that a "reactionary" political establishment defends "reactionary" economic relations. The implication being you can't have a political revolution without it being a social revolution.

[CesareBorgia]

Despite the fact that capitalist class relations exist in China and capitalist property is protected by violence through the state

This is also the case in every country of the world

,
despite the large scale export of finance capital, despite the extraction of surplus value of labor from foreign countries, despite arming and fueling military conflicts

ok...

How exactly do you define 'Imperialism'? Your criteria is extremely broad and generalized.

Would you be so kind as to list every country you consider 'Imperialist?'

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You can have a political revolution without fundamentally altering the economy. For instance, if a popular uprising removes an entrenched dictatorship in a capitalist country, replaces it with a 'democratic' government, and leaves the economy untouched.

Of course that's not our goal... Neither is preserving the capitalist economy in China.

[bailey_187]

virtualy no one calls for a political revolution only in china now. i think the IMT had a split about this?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There are some groups that call for a political revolution in China. Any that identify it as a deformed workers state would have to by dint of that position.

[Gorilla]

Under Lenin's definition of imperialism, Chinese investment abroad is imperialist. Capital is being exported, ergo imperialism full stop.

However, one aspect of historical imperialism that Lenin doesn't really touch on is so-called "primitive accumulation" - basically, just fucking stealing shit - land, oil, coal, diamonds etc. Luxemburg points out in Accumulation of Capital that this didn't just happen at the dawn of capitalism and then stop, rather it's a constant feature of capitalism, expressed as imperialism.

I personally think Luxemburg's analysis of imperialism is the better of the two. Under it would China be imperialist? I don't know. You'd have to look at what rates they're getting for natural resource extraction, compare them with those of US and EU companies and world market rates. I suspect they'd do slightly better on that metric than "capital exported? (y/n)"

[RedStarOverChina]

I don't know about the statistics this year or in 2010, but in 2009 China attracted about 950 billion dollars in FDI (it was about 1100 billion in 2008). In 2009 China's own direct investment in foreign countries amounts to about 560 billion.

So China is still way more dominated by foreign capital than it is dominating others.

No doubt it is exploiting less development country while itself is being exploited and its market dominated by countries that truly qualify as imperial powers.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i think the idea of an imperialist power outside of Europe upsets people
Japan.

[hatzel]

I don't know about the statistics this year or in 2010, but in 2009 China attracted about 95 billion dollars in FDI (it was about 110 billion in 2008). In 2009 China's own direct investment in foreign countries amounts to about 560 billion.

So China is still way more dominated by foreign capital than it is dominating others.

These figures must be wrong, judging from your conclusion. You've done them the wrong way, surely? :confused:

Anyway, China attracted about 574 billion of FDI in 2010, whilst investing 279 billion. If you include Hong Kong, though, which invested 873 billion, we'll see that 'Greater China' is the 5th highest foreign investor in the world, behind the US, France, UK and Germany.

Still, I'm not entirely sure if FDI is the best measure when considering this. Perhaps some of that Chinese money flowing into Africa isn't counted as FDI, which is (says Wikipedia) 'investment to acquire a lasting management interest (10 percent or more of voting stock) in an enterprise operating in an economy other than that of the investor.' My understanding is that those little agreements, 'we'll pay for a load of roads for you if you give us rights to all that oil over there' along with all those potentially shady loan deals, wouldn't come up as FDI.

[Rafiq]

I think it's important we consider China as battleground for class struggle, as we consider the United States as such. Arguably, China is more capitalist than the United States. If China had the same power as the United States, they'd be invading just as much countries.

[RedStarOverChina]

These figures must be wrong, judging from your conclusion. You've done them the wrong way, surely? :confused:


Yes. I was quoting from Chinese sources, and I made a mistake converting the units. In Chinese, we do not say 10 thousand. Instead we say 1 wan (万). Thus the confusion. I have edited it.




My understanding is that those little agreements, 'we'll pay for a load of roads for you if you give us rights to all that oil over there' along with all those potentially shady loan deals, wouldn't come up as FDI. Then you are talking about two separate matters. FDI consists more of private investment motivated only by profit, whereas these are government sponsored projects.

And can one really be against foreign investment helping to build roads, schools, hospitals etc.? China's involvement in Africa is dubious in many aspects, but that is not one of them.

[Gorilla]

I think it's important to realize how inadequate Lenin's analysis of imperialism is to the current situation, especially in Africa. Where Lenin says that imperialism is characterized by the export of capital from the imperialist nations abroad, the reverse has actually been true. Africa has been exporting capital in the trillions of dollars to the West over the past 30-40 years.

Newly "independent" nations took out economic development loans denominated in Western currencies during the 60s and 70s. In order to repay these loans, economies had to be set up oriented heavily toward exporting natural resources to the West. Rather than, say, trading with each other or diversifying into more sophisticated industries. Then rates went through the roof in the 80s and nations were forced to refinance on usurious terms. That's when the structural adjustment regime came to be; and the first thing to be "adjusted" was always whatever state-directed efforts were being made to diversify out of raw material production.

And where Lenin thought imperialism would lead to the further socialization of production, the last few decades of imperialism in Africa have led to a significant de-socialization of production, a shrinking of the organized proletariat.

So, Africa has been exporting capital in the form of 1) cheap natural resources, 2) interest on hard-currency loans, 3) privatized state assets.

Is China doing this? On the whole, no. They may in some cases be underpaying for raw materials but they are not demanding repayment in hard currency or demanding ruinous free-market policies.

[agnixie]

Is China doing this? On the whole, no. They may in some cases be underpaying for raw materials but they are not demanding repayment in hard currency or demanding ruinous free-market policies.

At least in Zimbabwe, the chinese investments led to them bleeding money both ways. The Chinese government did make them repay in hard currency.