Chinese influence in Africa?

[Soomie]

I have a fellow comrade who I have been having a discussion with about the Chinese influence in Africa. While I argue that we can't really look to China as a proper Socialist example, as they are still very bourgeois in nature and are in fact slipping further and further back to capitalism, he argues that they are indeed Socialist, "have pulled more people out of poverty than any country in history," and that "we should emphasize china's socialist leadership and the major socialist aspects existing in their economy as part of their success."

I think that China can be used as a primitive and basic example in a capitalist world, but I don't think that they are appropriate for the long term revolution, because they are still very much capitalist. I don't believe that Socialism can exist in one state and it can't come from any government influence. It must come from the revolution of workers worldwide.

He especially praises the Chinese influence in Africa, and believes that "chinese deals have been very beneficial to underdeveloped African nations, for instance they've been cutting very favorable deals to the Congolese government to rebuild their infrastructure after they suffered through the greatest war since WWII. Chinese business affairs and construction deals in Africa are hardly neo-colonialist or imperialist, many africans have lauded the fairness of these trade deals such as China has offered several African nations to build modern infrastructure if they would sell them oil-AT MARKET PRICE. That's a very generous offer."

I personally don't like any of it. Opinions of Chinese influence in Africa and how much they're "helping" out their fellow comrades?

[Raúl Duke]

It's all capitalist dealings...one way to look at is as a "fair deal" but another way is to see China as "out-bargaining" the West. They need the energy resources, et.al. for their economy.

I've heard other examples that weren't so bright...such as Chinese building certain economic infrastructure in other countries, particularly for energy or some such, and only using Chinese labor. Plus since they bought the claim/land, it's not exactly a deal...just a Chinese business extracting energy somewhere and all the profits go to the Chinese: all they had to do was bought the claim/etc.

Either way, it's not exactly all humanitarian.

[Soomie]

And this was my point exactly. It's capitalist, no matter which way you look at it. Lesser of two evils, maybe, but an evil nonetheless.

[Raúl Duke]

Im still surprised people still think China is "socialist." :huh:

I wonder how they explain the worker's condition in China as socialist...

[Soomie]

Im still surprised people still think China is "socialist." :huh:

I wonder how they explain the worker's condition in China as socialist...

This:

"As for China they still retain the commanding heights of their economy under public and worker ownership ( steel, mining, concrete, public utilities, domestic manufacturing and key technological firms) which was what Lenin advocated during the brief retreat to Capitalism under the NEP (which Trotsky supported). However, China as a country has a much larger population and has needed longer to develop its productive forces. Ever since the crisis of 2,008 decimated privately owned chinese made-for-export industry, the economy has shifted much to the favor of State and worker owned co-operatives over private industry and the leadership has emphasized moving forward with socialism much to the dismay of the Western press."

[Raúl Duke]

Ever since the crisis of 2,008 decimated privately owned chinese made-for-export industry,:confused:

I can still buy a lot of Chinese made goods?
Granted, I recall when much clothes were made in China although these days clothes seem to be made mostly elsewhere...but you still got a lot of for-export Chinese plastic objects and electronics.

Are they made by these public companies and worker co-ops, sub-contractually for Western corporations?

I still think there are quite a substantial number of private Chinese companies like Haier an Foxconn....hmmm


they still retain the commanding heights of their economy under public...ownershipThat's not socialism per se... :P


the leadership has emphasized moving forward with socialism much to the dismay of the Western press

I've never heard of this from the Western Press....I would like to hear about this...

[Zealot]

:confused:

I can still buy a lot of Chinese made goods?
Granted, I recall when much clothes were made in China although these days clothes seem to be made mostly elsewhere...but you still got a lot of for-export Chinese plastic objects and electronics.

Heiko Khoo argues that private capitalism only operates in secondary products like the ones you mentioned: electronics, plastics, etc. and that since the state still owns the key sectors in the economy private capitalism is kept in check and will allow for further socialisation in the future (which he claims has already started, particularly after the 2008 crisis, where state intervention in the economy was second only to that carried out under Mao).

[Ostrinski]

And this was my point exactly. It's capitalist, no matter which way you look at it. Lesser of two evils, maybe, but an evil nonetheless.It is not a lesser of two evils. There is no humane capitalism.

[Ostrinski]

This:

"As for China they still retain the commanding heights of their economy under public and worker ownership ( steel, mining, concrete, public utilities, domestic manufacturing and key technological firms) which was what Lenin advocated during the brief retreat to Capitalism under the NEP (which Trotsky supported). However, China as a country has a much larger population and has needed longer to develop its productive forces. Ever since the crisis of 2,008 decimated privately owned chinese made-for-export industry, the economy has shifted much to the favor of State and worker owned co-operatives over private industry and the leadership has emphasized moving forward with socialism much to the dismay of the Western press."I personally think any comparison of China's marketization with the NEP is horseshit. The NEP was a concession made to non proletarian elements under conditions that were not ripe for the building of socialism i.e. isolation of a proletarian-minority region.

China by contrast has developed into an imperial power with a powerful bourgeoisie and it would make no sense for private industries to be transferred back into the hands of the state.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes there is a huge land grab as well as the Chinese negotiating with a genocide promoting government in Sudan. But its not only China, it is ROK, Saudi Arabia, and others taking part in the splitting of Africa's goodies. I really think that the list of people who think that China is remotely progressive on this forum is pretty low.

[Raúl Duke]

the state still owns the key sectors in the economy private capitalism is kept in checkBut certain regimes have owned or in some measured control the "commanding heights of industry" and were not exactly 'socialist' nor consider themselves to be...no?

Also what about the conditions of workers? Why isn't the "vanguard" party taking care of its own (i.e. the proletariat) from certain capitalist abuses?

I doubt China is socialist, in any shape or form, anymore...if anything it's going down that "capitalist road" the Maoists decried about.

[Red Commissar]

The Chinese influence in Africa, especially its help with infrastructure development, is sometimes held up as a difference from the activities of western nations in Africa. Granted China has been more proactive in this, but it should be remembered that even in the era of 1800s colonialism, developing infrastructure was a common feature, though of course these were directly owned by the imperialist company then.

I mean, what's the point of exploiting the resources of a mine somewhere if it can not be brought to port in a timely manner? That's the ultimate motivation here- there is of course a mutual interest here from both the nation in question and China, but we know that these nations tend to keep their wealth at the top and little of its benefits are seen at the bottom.

China isn't alone in these projects to create modern ports, expand highways and railroads, and create more electrified areas. They are just more straightforward and proactive in doing this, since western nations generally only give aid packages and then line up some companies from their countries to receive contracts for different projects when the country uses the aid package. China, of course, can skip through the whole contractor phase since most of these companies are tied up with the government in someway anyways.

Africa has a lot of untapped resources and a growing market like that of China wants to be able to get first dibs on truly exploiting those, which up until now only the surface of which was scratched.

If China was taking the same efforts to smaller communities with no real economic value then it can be seen as a good thing. AFAIK though they are more concerned with national infrastructure as a whole, trying to integrate the supply networks in those countries with the global market and make it easier to extract a resource and move it to market in a timely manner.

[bifo_161]

i guess some of it's also to do with the fact that as china slowly becomes more and more of a service economy they are looking for a place to make their own products. So i suspect many factories owned by chinese companies will start to appear in western africa.

[Killer Enigma]

Although this doesn't exactly address China's role in Africa, China's role on Syria has been a source of criticism from the US and European left. It really shouldn't be. (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/china-bashing-syria-the-degenerate-left/)

"China also factors into this tautological worldview. For the degenerate left, international solidarity by a state – any state – is categorically impossible because they consider either most or every state to be capitalist.

Consider the tautology at work here: When China vetoes a no-fly zone resolution, it’s tyranny supporting tyranny. When China doesn’t veto a no-fly zone resolution in Libya, they are providing “essential support – perhaps the essential support – for capitalist domination internationally.” (2) When Russia positions ships to offset the US’s Patriot missiles in Turkey, it’s an imperialist power looking out for its strategic and commercial interests. If Russia doesn’t oppose Western intervention in Libya, they are silent partners in the imperialist project.

…Or perhaps we have to approach China, and Russia, dialectically by considering their place in relation to imperialism at a given moment in history!"

[Let's Get Free]

China is blatantly capitalist. They haven't even tried to clothe themselves in fake Marxian rhetoric for some decades. They're just another parasitic capitalist competitor in Africa