China sets its eyes on Ethiopia

[Flying Purple People Eater]

http://nazret.com/blog/index.php/2013/07/09/world-bank-sees-china-ethiopia-as-good-fit


09:31:52 pm, by nazret.com, 1032 words
Categories: Ethiopia
World Bank sees China, Ethiopia as good fit

http://nazret.com/blog/media/blogs/pict/02006c74860113409e612c.jpg

Guang Z. Chen, country director for Ethiopia at the World Bank,
World Bank sees China, Ethiopia as good fit

By Li Lianxing

Source: China Daily

New partnership aims to remove obstacles to foreign investment in promising African nation

Ethiopia is attracting significant Chinese foreign direct investment, but has still been lagging in overall FDI. However, an official from the World Bank says a partnership between the bank and Chinese companies will help remove obstacles that have been preventing Ethiopia from becoming one of Africa's most attractive destinations for investment.

Guang Z. Chen, country director for Ethiopia at the World Bank, says the bank is a major player in Africa, providing local soft financing and bringing in knowledge-based services and technical assistance. Chen believes the bank's cooperation with Chinese companies could greatly improve Africa's development.

"Chinese partners have a relatively small presence in and knowledge of this continent, and their involvement in the past has to a certain degree attracted criticism over labor abuse and pollution," he says. "But if we can cooperate, the World Bank has the capacity to make Chinese companies better informed and therefore help them maintain international standards."

He says the bank will leverage more funding to help Africa and China pool critical resources to improve the continent's development.

"For instance, a survey we conducted in 2012 regarding Chinese FDI in Ethiopia is a very good example of how we can use our experience to give Chinese companies proper guidance, while also suggesting to host governments ways they can attract more investment," he says.

"Considering China has an export-oriented economy, a developed and prosperous Africa could offer a large market to ensure China's continued development. A better relationship will be good for both sides and our bank is willing to facilitate that."

The World Bank surveyed 69 Chinese enterprises doing business in Ethiopia in mid-2012 and released a report in November.

"As the largest trading partner with Ethiopia in 2011, China's sample was representative," he says. "Identifying and addressing obstacles could help Ethiopia to take better advantage of foreign investors."

The survey showed that there are four main drivers of Chinese FDI in Ethiopia: a good understanding of the investment climate gained from entrepreneurs' social networks, perceived opportunities provided by the current state of the Ethiopian economy, cross-border investment incentives provided by the Ethiopian and Chinese governments and the attractions of stable political environments such as Ethiopia's.

"But there are also some obstacles that have dampened enthusiasm to invest in Ethiopia," Chen says. "Among the top concerns are trade regulation and customs clearance efficiency, perceived risks due to foreign exchange rates, inconsistent and inefficient taxation, as well as government regulations affecting business efficiency.

"It's very interesting that corruption was not a major concern for Chinese investors in Ethiopia, whereas in other countries corruption is a major deterrent to FDI. So if the government in Ethiopia can continue to improve its investment environment, China and other partners will see it as an attractive business destination."

Chen says that Ethiopia's economic model is based on state intervention, but it's not a completely state-planned economy. Governments in Asian countries such as China, South Korea, Vietnam or Malaysia, play similarly dominant roles in their economies.

He says at this stage, relying solely on the private sector might not be the most effective way to develop a country. This kind of model shouldn't be judged by ideology because it increased the average GDP from 1 or 2 percent between 1950 and 2002 to nearly 10 percent during the past decade.

"But it's a process that will evolve into a development model in which the private sector and small and medium-sized corporations will play a bigger role, as the government has limited effects on the economy and the country should walk on 'two legs'," Chen says.

He believes this is because, although the country can mobilize resources for state construction at certain times, it has to ensure that economic growth is sustainable.

"Ethiopia must create an environment that fosters its private sector and smaller corporations, and also attracts foreign direct investment," he says.

"Ethiopia's endowment is different from many other African because it is based on natural resources and its labor force. Thus, creating jobs is critical for future development."

Chen says China could play a significant role in this regard as the two countries' requirements complement each other.

"Labor and land costs in China are getting increasingly expensive, which means profit margins are shrinking swiftly," he says. "Some manufacturers only make 5 percent profit when producing goods in China. But the costs of labor, land, energy and raw materials in Ethiopia are much lower than in China. For instance, labor costs in Ethiopia are one-sixth to one-eighth of those in southern China's Guangdong province."

Labor-intensive industries are one area where the development needs of Ethiopia and China can fit, as it doesn't make any difference to the Chinese where their goods are made.

"But there are also invisible costs for foreign investors, especially exceptionally high logistics expenses, infrastructure limitations that cannot ensure factories' normal operations, poor transport and relatively low labor skills," he says.

However, according to Chen, these are gaps that can be bridged as moving factories from China to Africa is still a win-win approach for both sides.

"China is facing tightened customs regulations and quotas when exporting goods to the rest of the world, but Ethiopia doesn't have this problem," Chen says. "And Ethiopia needs to attract FDI to upgrade its economic structure by shifting production from East Asian countries to its own factories."

During one of his visits to South China's Pearl River Delta, which has the most factories of any region in China, Chen notes that Africa is still far from the first choice of Chinese companies that are considering moving manufacturing operations overseas. They still prefer South Asian and Southeast Asian countries.

"The late prime minister Meles Zenawi also told me of his confusion when, after several promotional tours overseas, Ethiopia's appeal as a destination for FDI did not impress many investors," Chen says.

"This was why the World Bank decided to conduct a survey within the existing Chinese business community in Ethiopia to find out about the obstacles and challenges of doing business in this country."

[Red Commissar]

What area of Ethiopia's economy is China interested in over in Ethiopia? Cheap labor? Resources? A bit of both?

For more information here's the breakdown of who Ethiopia primarily trades with...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ethiopia

Export partners: Germany 14.2%, China 12.2%, Belgium 7.8%, Saudi Arabia 6.8%, U.S. 6.3%, Italy 5.1% (2010)

Import Partners: Saudi Arabia 10%, China 9.9%, U.S. 7.6%, India 4.6% (2011)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The PRC should just call it "People's Neo-Colonialism" and that will make it Communist, just like their Republic, Liberation Army and their Congress. Also give it a red flag, that helps too.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, Ethiopia certainly is a mess economically speaking like the rest of southern Africa. Let's hope the Chinese and Ethiopians are able to settle on significant loans, develop industrially and overcome the US Imperialists of the World Bank which have been keeping the continent strapped down since half a century. If the Ethiopian model succeeds and brings Industrial development to Africa over the next years, Capital will not have many more places to run to nor many more decades left to suck the life out of the global human population (as well as me personally).

[Red Commissar]

Well, Ethiopia certainly is a mess economically speaking like the rest of southern Africa. Let's hope the Chinese and Ethiopians are able to settle on significant loans, develop industrially and overcome the US Imperialists of the World Bank which have been keeping the continent strapped down since half a century. If the Ethiopian model succeeds and brings Industrial development to Africa over the next years, Capital will not have many more places to run to nor many more decades left to suck the life out of the global human population (as well as me personally).

I understand what you are saying, but do you think that what China is doing is significantly different from the US?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well, Ethiopia certainly is a mess economically speaking like the rest of southern Africa. Let's hope the Chinese and Ethiopians are able to settle on significant loans, develop industrially and overcome the US Imperialists of the World Bank which have been keeping the continent strapped down since half a century. .

So, please tell me how do you overcome this subjugation by using the very same method that the World Bank and imperialsim has used for ages?


If the Ethiopian model succeeds and brings Industrial development to Africa over the next years, Capital will not have many more places to run to nor many more decades left to suck the life out of the global human population

What? How does that follow? China is not interested in any compassionate help. Even compared to the half-arsed attempts of the PRC to aid Africa in the 1970's, the modern attempts are robbery of the old-school imperialist variety. China imports its own labour, provides its own security, contributes to endless corruption and its purpose is solely the securing the sources of raw materials for the domestic Chinese economy.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

So, please tell me how do you overcome this subjugation by using the very same method that the World Bank and imperialsim has used for ages?



What? How does that follow? China is not interested in any compassionate help. Even compared to the half-arsed attempts of the PRC to aid Africa in the 1970's, the modern attempts are robbery of the old-school imperialist variety. China imports its own labour, provides its own security, contributes to endless corruption and its purpose is solely the securing the sources of raw materials for the domestic Chinese economy.

China has been a lot less aggressive imperialist country than any European country or the US was, has been. If you look at the infrastructure built in Angola for instance, and the machinery imported for Chinese wage slaves to make profits for Chinese companies in Africa, it is a lot more substantial than anything the West has ever done. Will Industrial development actually help the people? No, of course it wont, it is capitalist. But it can get rid of the peasantry and agriculture to produce a proletarian population as we have in the west and China is approaching. Give it at most half a century more and the question of 'why for proletarian power on the globe?' will be a self-evident question to retain human freedom, democratic legitimacy and liberty.

[Prof. Oblivion]

China has been a lot less aggressive imperialist country than any European country or the US was, has been. If you look at the infrastructure built in Angola for instance, and the machinery imported for Chinese wage slaves to make profits for Chinese companies in Africa, it is a lot more substantial than anything the West has ever done. Will Industrial development actually help the people? No, of course it wont, it is capitalist. But it can get rid of the peasantry and agriculture to produce a proletarian population as we have in the west and China is approaching. Give it at most half a century more and the question of 'why for proletarian power on the globe?' will be a self-evident question to retain human freedom, democratic legitimacy and liberty.

Wow, is promoting "progressive imperialism" acceptable on these boards?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Wow, is promoting "progressive imperialism" acceptable on these boards?

Who is "promoting" 'progressive' imperialism? Are you?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

If Cosby implies that I am promoting a "progressive" imperialism as he puts it, this is incorrect. I do not promote the economic exploitation of one or other country. I promote the building of an independent proletarian party movement in all countries.

[GerrardWinstanley]

The PRC should just call it "People's Neo-Colonialism" and that will make it Communist, just like their Republic, Liberation Army and their Congress. Also give it a red flag, that helps too.If it's colonialism, then they're doing awfully well not to be invading any countries or killing anybody.

[Paul Cockshott]

The scale of surplus product produced in China and the effects of the falling rate of profit there are, imo likely to lead to very significant flows of value in the form of means of production into Africa and the transformation of the population there into an industrial proletariat. As Workers Control says, that is clearly historically progressive. Once that has occured, the last latent reserve army will have been absorbed and the balance of class forces will shift in favour of the working class.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If it's colonialism, then they're doing awfully well not to be invading any countries or killing anybody.

Colonialism has never been exclusively about invading and killing people, though colonialism might be a misnomer for what China does, though the similarities to the past European involvement are considerable. It is definitely imperialism however; and though Africa is reluctant, with good reason, to get involved with the Europeans again, they do not have the same bias against Chinese involvement, and this is the same cycle being repeated.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The scale of surplus product produced in China and the effects of the falling rate of profit there are, imo likely to lead to very significant flows of value in the form of means of production into Africa and the transformation of the population there into an industrial proletariat. As Workers Control says, that is clearly historically progressive. Once that has occured, the last latent reserve army will have been absorbed and the balance of class forces will shift in favour of the working class.

Comrade, this is clearly where Marx ran out of time to give a global, holistic view on the development of capital, its subsequent objective implications for the class struggle, and as we see here in this thread, as well as the subjective political conclusions which should come out of this. It is strange that Kautsky nor Lenin ever attempted to advance on Marx's plans for Capital.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If it's colonialism, then they're doing awfully well not to be invading any countries or killing anybody.

Yeah that's the same reasoning the USA used for why they were so much better than the Brits and French ... it turns out they didn't need to invade places to pursue a colonial project (though it didn't stop them invading countries where it suited them too)


If Cosby implies that I am promoting a "progressive" imperialism as he puts it, this is incorrect. I do not promote the economic exploitation of one or other country. I promote the building of an independent proletarian party movement in all countries.

It doesn't change the fact, though, that the labor of African workers and the fruits of African soil are going to benefit the Chinese bourgeoisie. Just look at the (often violent) exploitation in Chinese trading "partners" like Cambodia. The proletariat is in no way determining the political and economic policies in question except in making it physically possible through their labor, just as much as with the US or Europe.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It doesn't change the fact, though, that the labor of African workers and the fruits of African soil are going to benefit the Chinese bourgeoisie. Just look at the (often violent) exploitation in Chinese trading "partners" like Cambodia. The proletariat is in no way determining the political and economic policies in question except in making it physically possible through their labor, just as much as with the US or Europe.

Exactly, and this is what we as Communists need to see changed of course.
But, you see, the class countries in which brutal exploitation still occurs are backward, peasant countries in which the means of production have been hindered to be revolutionized by capital through foremost decades of imperialist national state interests, ensuing civil wars, and a general lack of stable national government institutions for education, health care etc.
All this has resulted in the many African and Asian countries not developing their industry, having 70% of sub-saharan workers labor like stupid animals on the Land, having poorly or no educated populations, not having any kind of bourgeois democracy, and generally making the conditions for building a proper democratic proletarian opposition objectively impossible.

If these (on the global market) out-competed and western-policy oppressed countries of the hypocritically named "'developing' world" can stabilize their political systems and get the weaker imperialist states of the globe to give them large loans and good trade agreements which will actually develop industry and bring forth a proletarian population, the conditions for revolutionary political organization of the working class and Socialism will be given. However, seeing this benefit of industrial development for local and global conditions of struggle for the working class, says nothing of the tasks or policies which comrades in the underdeveloped countries should take. The goal of communists in Africa and Asia should of course be the building of an independent proletarian political movement of the urban workers for better conditions of work and revolutionary education of all workers.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

EBut, you see, the class countries in which brutal exploitation still occurs are backward, peasant countries in which the means of production have been hindered to be revolutionized by capital through foremost decades of imperialist national state interests, ensuing civil wars, and a general lack of stable national government institutions for education, health care etc.
All this has resulted in the many African and Asian countries not developing their industry, having 70% of sub-saharan workers labor like stupid animals on the Land, having poorly or no educated populations, not having any kind of bourgeois democracy, and generally making the conditions for building a proper democratic proletarian opposition objectively impossible.


European colonialism also promised to improve the means of production in these same parts of the world. Marx initially argued that Imperialism would help to do this because it would weaken or destroy the local elites, which did happen. The problem was that Imperialism only developed the means of production where it needed them. Imperialists built ports, railroads and mines where it needed to extract resources. After WWII the empires of that era built hydroelectric dams, bridges and other infrastructure, and gave substantial loans to help with these constructions. However, the limited scope of development ultimately left the country with an economy that wasn't that much more developed as far as the means of production was concerned.

If Chinese companies are building roads with Chinese workers and Chinese equipment (as is often the case) you don't have that much of a creation of local workers. These countries also do have a proletariat already, usually in extractive industries. Yes there has been struggle between Chinese mine bosses and African workers, but there was class struggle before Chinese companies moved in. Lumumba, after all, managed to take over the Congo despite the small size of the working class at the moment of independence. Many other African countries saw vigorous leftwing movements right after colonialism ended too. What defeated the working class of these countries was (aside from the ideological limitations of Cold War era leftism) armed intervention by countries like the US, UK, France and Belgium.



If these (on the global market) out-competed and western-policy oppressed countries of the hypocritically named "'developing' world" can stabilize their political systems and get the weaker imperialist states of the globe to give them large loans and good trade agreements which will actually develop industry and bring forth a proletarian population, the conditions for revolutionary political organization of the working class and Socialism will be given. However, seeing this benefit of industrial development for local and global conditions of struggle for the working class, says nothing of the tasks or policies which comrades in the underdeveloped countries should take. The goal of communists in Africa and Asia should of course be the building of an independent proletarian political movement of the urban workers for better conditions of work and revolutionary education of all workers.

It's important to remember though that the people in these countries making these deals are the westernized bourgeoisie which is in in political power. Yeah in a sense more factories means more workers, but more contacts with the Chinese government also means more arms and ammunition for the local bourgeoisie. This kind of development runs the same risks which neoliberal development did, because in a sense this is just China profiting off of the destruction left by neoliberal policies pushed by the US and Europe.

[bcbm]

Well, Ethiopia certainly is a mess economically speaking like the rest of southern Africa.

ethiopia isn't in southern africa

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

ethiopia isn't in southern africa

Really?
My writing it like that was not meant to geographically group Ethiopia with "southern Africa". When I say 'Southern' Africa I mean the Congo, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Angola regions where plentiful resources are and where Chinese influence is increasing. Was merely a part of my thought process when thinking about the continent and hoping the increased Chinese imperialist influence in this region will change the state of things for the continent.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

European colonialism also promised to improve the means of production in these same parts of the world. Marx initially argued that Imperialism would help to do this because it would weaken or destroy the local elites, which did happen. The problem was that Imperialism only developed the means of production where it needed them. Imperialists built ports, railroads and mines where it needed to extract resources. After WWII the empires of that era built hydroelectric dams, bridges and other infrastructure, and gave substantial loans to help with these constructions. However, the limited scope of development ultimately left the country with an economy that wasn't that much more developed as far as the means of production was concerned.

If Chinese companies are building roads with Chinese workers and Chinese equipment (as is often the case) you don't have that much of a creation of local workers. These countries also do have a proletariat already, usually in extractive industries. Yes there has been struggle between Chinese mine bosses and African workers, but there was class struggle before Chinese companies moved in. Lumumba, after all, managed to take over the Congo despite the small size of the working class at the moment of independence. Many other African countries saw vigorous leftwing movements right after colonialism ended too. What defeated the working class of these countries was (aside from the ideological limitations of Cold War era leftism) armed intervention by countries like the US, UK, France and Belgium.



It's important to remember though that the people in these countries making these deals are the westernized bourgeoisie which is in in political power. Yeah in a sense more factories means more workers, but more contacts with the Chinese government also means more arms and ammunition for the local bourgeoisie. This kind of development runs the same risks which neoliberal development did, because in a sense this is just China profiting off of the destruction left by neoliberal policies pushed by the US and Europe.


Huh? Sure, some 'dictators' like Mobutu can be called "western puppets" (Today's Congo government, Nigeria perhaps), but the increasing number of third world countries which have gained political stability, have independent national leaderships. If you have seen the progress Latin America has made towards national bourgeois independence and industrial development in the last decades, it is very hopeful. The backward African and Asian countries hopefully will follow this progressive bourgeois path and stabilize their bourgeois institutions' rule over their country to advance national industry.

Look at Afghanistan for instance. If the US Army moves out, the afghan bourgeois (questionably) democratic joke State under the Karzai government will be no match for the reactionary Islamic hordes that control the countryside and Afghanistan will become a country like (or probably even worse than) Saudi Arabia, where workers have no rights and communists have no heads.
Under this shitty situation where bourgeois rule has failed to establish itself yet, what is needed is an even shittier left wing answer. Finding the right tactics for such a situation would be difficult. But any attempt to a solution in the fight against the Islamists taking national state power would have to include the backward rural population allying with the proletariat. And where that ended up, we saw in the last century.

Luckily for us, pre-capitalist rule or unstable bourgeois governmental institutions are globally a very small part of the picture in 2013. At least, still... if one looks at Greece, Fascism could turn out to be a threat to democracy once again. But I personally doubt very much that the modern populations of Europe and America would accept Fascist rule. As the Occupy movement showed, social justice and especially democracy are ideals which the majority of our western populations are very concerned about the health of. It's up to us to build one socialist party for our class to take power.

[hatzel]

Hey yeah who remembers when the French rolled into Madagascar that one time and built shitloads of roads and generally developed the infrastructure and of oh no wait I just decided that's a terrible example everybody should definitely everything I'm saying right here...

[bcbm]

Really?
My writing it like that was not meant to geographically group Ethiopia with "southern Africa". When I say 'Southern' Africa I mean the Congo, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Angola regions where plentiful resources are and where Chinese influence is increasing. Was merely a part of my thought process when thinking about the continent and hoping the increased Chinese imperialist influence in this region will change the state of things for the continent.

i'm afraid i don't understand why you call it 'southern africa' if none of the countries listed is in the south at all?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Mussolini had plans to develop infrastructure in Ethiopia too. I guess he was a beacon for the proletariat of the future fighting against the working-class rebels of the now.

Progressive imperialism folks!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Huh? Sure, some 'dictators' like Mobutu can be called "western puppets" (Today's Congo government, Nigeria perhaps), but the increasing number of third world countries which have gained political stability, have independent national leaderships. If you have seen the progress Latin America has made towards national bourgeois independence and industrial development in the last decades, it is very hopeful. The backward African and Asian countries hopefully will follow this progressive bourgeois path and stabilize their bourgeois institutions' rule over their country to advance national industry.


What is an "independent national leadership"? The Rajas of India were an "independent national leadership" which signed on to the rule of the British because it was in their interests. The "national bourgeoisie" of these countries are not really all that independent because they are dependent on other countries for access to investment, credit, technology and important services like education.

Latin America's so-called "national bourgeoisie" gained power and independence on the backs of a leftwing worker and peasant movement which already had some sway on the continent at the outset of the Cold War, but they too are constrained greatly by their need for foreign goods.



Look at Afghanistan for instance. If the US Army moves out, the afghan bourgeois (questionably) democratic joke State under the Karzai government will be no match for the reactionary Islamic hordes that control the countryside and Afghanistan will become a country like (or probably even worse than) Saudi Arabia, where workers have no rights and communists have no heads.
Under this shitty situation where bourgeois rule has failed to establish itself yet, what is needed is an even shittier left wing answer. Finding the right tactics for such a situation would be difficult. But any attempt to a solution in the fight against the Islamists taking national state power would have to include the backward rural population allying with the proletariat. And where that ended up, we saw in the last century.


Saudi Arabia has a vibrant Capitalist system, however, which goes to show that capitalism can progress without a strong worker's movement in certain contexts.


Luckily for us, pre-capitalist rule or unstable bourgeois governmental institutions are globally a very small part of the picture in 2013. At least, still... if one looks at Greece, Fascism could turn out to be a threat to democracy once again. But I personally doubt very much that the modern populations of Europe and America would accept Fascist rule. As the Occupy movement showed, social justice and especially democracy are ideals which the majority of our western populations are very concerned about the health of. It's up to us to build one socialist party for our class to take power.

It's not just fascism which is the threat though, it's corrupt local bourgeoisie who are looking to profit off of the exchange of Capital between these countries and the world market.

[#FF0000]

I always thought a lot of "Anti-Imperialists" were just "alter-imperialists" and, welp, this thread certainly proves that.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Who is "promoting" 'progressive' imperialism? Are you?

I think that judging "imperialisms" on which is "better" or "less harsh" or whatever is a completely silly way to look at economic developments, and in doing so promotes a subjective viewpoint based on which imperialism is "better" or "worse" by inherently discussing it in those terms.


The scale of surplus product produced in China and the effects of the falling rate of profit there are, imo likely to lead to very significant flows of value in the form of means of production into Africa and the transformation of the population there into an industrial proletariat. As Workers Control says, that is clearly historically progressive. Once that has occured, the last latent reserve army will have been absorbed and the balance of class forces will shift in favour of the working class.

Translation into English: Paul thinks that investors in China are having trouble finding suitable avenues of investment and are going to be exporting their investments into Africa, which will lead to its industrialization.

Get rid of the ridiculous Marxian jargon and normal people can actually understand you. You sound incredibly pretentious otherwise, and you're not saying anything profound or insightful. In fact, I'd argue that you're wrong and that the "transformation of the population [of Africa] into an industrial proletariat" from "significant flows of value in the form of means of production" is a tired argument that's been asserted for decades.


Huh? Sure, some 'dictators' like Mobutu can be called "western puppets" (Today's Congo government, Nigeria perhaps), but the increasing number of third world countries which have gained political stability, have independent national leaderships. If you have seen the progress Latin America has made towards national bourgeois independence and industrial development in the last decades, it is very hopeful. The backward African and Asian countries hopefully will follow this progressive bourgeois path and stabilize their bourgeois institutions' rule over their country to advance national industry.

Look at Afghanistan for instance. If the US Army moves out, the afghan bourgeois (questionably) democratic joke State under the Karzai government will be no match for the reactionary Islamic hordes that control the countryside and Afghanistan will become a country like (or probably even worse than) Saudi Arabia, where workers have no rights and communists have no heads.
Under this shitty situation where bourgeois rule has failed to establish itself yet, what is needed is an even shittier left wing answer. Finding the right tactics for such a situation would be difficult. But any attempt to a solution in the fight against the Islamists taking national state power would have to include the backward rural population allying with the proletariat. And where that ended up, we saw in the last century.

Luckily for us, pre-capitalist rule or unstable bourgeois governmental institutions are globally a very small part of the picture in 2013. At least, still... if one looks at Greece, Fascism could turn out to be a threat to democracy once again. But I personally doubt very much that the modern populations of Europe and America would accept Fascist rule. As the Occupy movement showed, social justice and especially democracy are ideals which the majority of our western populations are very concerned about the health of. It's up to us to build one socialist party for our class to take power.

Calling a country like Ethiopia "politically stable" with "independent national leaderships" is hilarious. These countries are plagued by corruption and are wholly in bed with those who exploit the countries' resources. Corruption is rampant and stability doesn't exist.

[Paul Cockshott]

Mussolini had plans to develop infrastructure in Ethiopia too. I guess he was a beacon for the proletariat of the future fighting against the working-class rebels of the now.

Progressive imperialism folks!

Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, China has not invaded any country in Africa.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, China has not invaded any country in Africa.

Halliburton never invaded anyone.

[Paul Cockshott]

You sound incredibly pretentious otherwise, and you're not saying anything profound or insightful. In fact, I'd argue that you're wrong and that the "transformation of the population [of Africa] into an industrial proletariat" from "significant flows of value in the form of means of production" is a tired argument that's been asserted for decades.
I use the terms to be precise. China produces a very large surplus product, because of its big population and the greater development of technology now as compared to 100 years ago, this surplus is far larger than was produced by the European imperial powers back then.
The surplus product of China can assume either the material form of luxury goods for internal consumption by the bourgeoisie, or the form of consumer goods for export on credit ( as is now happening towards the USA ) or it can take the material form of means of production.

Whilst China is willing to export consumer goods on credit to the USA, it is only willing to do this because it still trusts the creditworthyness of the US. How long this can continue is questionable. It is clear though, that the potential to export consumer goods to Africa on creidt on this scale does not exist. Thus net flows of value from China to Africa are likely to take the form of means of production.

The quantity of means of production that China can export now is an order of magnitude greater than France and Britain could export when they controlled most of Africa as explicit colonies. Unlike France and Britain the potential rate of industrialisation that can be produced by Chinese exports of means of production is higher than could be possibly have been achieved during the period of Imperialism.


But it is entirely misleading to call Chinese economic activity in Africa imperialism. China has no empire in Africa, so at present the question of Chinese Imperialism is entirely hypothetical. Should China attempt to establish an empire in Africa then obviously this should be opposed.

[Paul Cockshott]

Halliburton never invaded anyone.

This is obviously true. It was the Armed forces of the United Kingdom and the United States that invaded Iraq. Companies in the modern world are not imperial powers, some states are.
In the 18th Century of course the situation was different the VOC was and imperial power as was the East India Company. These companies maintained their own very large armies and, in the case of the VOC, their own large naval forces.

There is no company of this type today.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I use the terms to be precise. China produces a very large surplus product, because of its big population and the greater development of technology now as compared to 100 years ago, this surplus is far larger than was produced by the European imperial powers back then.
The surplus product of China can assume either the material form of luxury goods for internal consumption by the bourgeoisie, or the form of consumer goods for export on credit ( as is now happening towards the USA ) or it can take the material form of means of production.

Translation: China is a net exporter. China can produce goods for domestic consumption or export. China exports consumer and capital goods.


Whilst China is willing to export consumer goods on credit to the USA, it is only willing to do this because it still trusts the creditworthyness of the US. How long this can continue is questionable.

The creditworthiness of US treasury debt isn't really questionable.


It is clear though, that the potential to export consumer goods to Africa on creidt on this scale does not exist. Thus net flows of value from China to Africa are likely to take the form of means of production.

Translation: Africans aren't wealthy enough to create a large consumer goods market, so the Chinese are likely to export capital goods to Africa.

The problem with this argument is obvious: Chinese investors aren't required to "export" anything to Africa. You are glossing over why China is investing in Ethiopia. In fact, you're completely ignoring specifics and instead saying completely obvious statements dressed up in pseudo-Marxian mumbo jumbo that really don't add anything new to the discussion.


The quantity of means of production that China can export now is an order of magnitude greater than France and Britain could export when they controlled most of Africa as explicit colonies. Unlike France and Britain the potential rate of industrialisation that can be produced by Chinese exports of means of production is higher than could be possibly have been achieved during the period of Imperialism.

But it is entirely misleading to call Chinese economic activity in Africa imperialism. China has no empire in Africa, so at present the question of Chinese Imperialism is entirely hypothetical. Should China attempt to establish an empire in Africa then obviously this should be opposed.

So imperialism only exists in the classical sense of literal empire, and the complicity of national governments on the behalf of foreign powers to advance their own interests doesn't count as imperialism. Maybe we could go so far as to call them "national" and "independent" as the other poster claimed earlier?


This is obviously true. It was the Armed forces of the United Kingdom and the United States that invaded Iraq. Companies in the modern world are not imperial powers, some states are.
In the 18th Century of course the situation was different the VOC was and imperial power as was the East India Company. These companies maintained their own very large armies and, in the case of the VOC, their own large naval forces.

There is no company of this type today.

Of course, Halliburton never invaded anyone, just like how China and other foreign powers never had to invade anyone because they didn't need to. Why invade a country when its leadership will cooperate? If you don't understand that extremely basic fact, then you don't understand anything about Africa.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Mussolini had plans to develop infrastructure in Ethiopia too. I guess he was a beacon for the proletariat of the future fighting against the working-class rebels of the now.

Progressive imperialism folks!

Mussolini had plans to develop infrastructure in Ethiopia 80 years ago, did he?

Hardly infrastructure aimed at moving industry to Africa. In fact, European and American colonialists have historically only given so many loans for infrastructure development as they saw necessary to exploit raw materials for industry "back home".

Mussolini was a bourgeois-Fascist, the worst sort of Imperialist tool and Reactionary the 'modern times' of Capital have given us. The PRC really cannot be compared to the Kingdom of Italy.

Infrastructure developments that are currently being advanced, experimented with building in Africa by the Chinese, are not just your typical railroad or bridge needed to transport the shit back home to China's factories. Chinese capitalist Companies are actually sending their workers to Africa to build factories. This is resulting in hospitals, apartment houses, and malls being sprung up in the middle of Africa.

As Paul Cockshott pointed out and the whole bourgeois Financial press world is worried about, Growth in China is slowing down, the Rates of profit falling - as is the systemic tendency of Capitalism. Capitalists in China are beginning to look to other continents to keep up accumulation. And Africa, as a coveted continent of natural riches having been oppressed since decades by the technologically advanced and industrial nation States, has never met global state or economic conditions where its own industry could develop. Now, however, this is beginning to look like a real possibility.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The creditworthiness of US treasury debt isn't really questionable.


Wait until a mass movement like the Tea Party or Occupy turns towards into a political opposition and then check that question again!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Mussolini had plans to develop infrastructure in Ethiopia 80 years ago, did he?

Hardly infrastructure aimed at moving industry to Africa.

Yes. And China does not have the intention to move industry to Africa, either.


In fact, European and American colonialists have historically only given so many loans for infrastructure development as they saw necessary to exploit raw materials for industry "back home". Exactly what China is doing right now. China is investing in infrastructure because, like the Europeans before, the infrastructure is necessary for the export of raw materials and import of Chinese consumer goods (the latter which, by the way, does not exactly encourage domestic industrial production).


Mussolini was a bourgeois-Fascist, the worst sort of Imperialist tool and Reactionary the 'modern times' of Capital have given us. The PRC really cannot be compared to the Kingdom of Italy.The fuck is a bourgeois fascist? A fascist is by definition a bourgeois. A bourgeois epithet on fascist is bloody redundant. Do you think the Chinese specialists who participate in the new robbery of Africa are not racist, anyhow? I've seen the refer to the locals as barbarians and monkeys and utterly inept at doing anything right.


Infrastructure developments that are currently being advanced, experimented with building in Africa by the Chinese, are not just your typical railroad or bridge needed to transport the shit back home to China's factories. Chinese capitalist Companies are actually sending their workers to Africa to build factories. This is resulting in hospitals, apartment houses, and malls being sprung up in the middle of Africa. Housing? You thinking of the large housing complexes that sit empty on the outskirts of Luanda because too few people can afford to live there, which the country paid for after bribes by Chinese businessmen and entrepreneurs? And shopping centres, really? The sign of progress is a fucking shopping centre for the well-off Africans? This is the same fucking thing as before. You know, the Europeans built homes and shops, mostly for their own (patterns emerging!) but also for local collaborators to dwell in, and they built hospitals and facilities; ports and railways to extract the inland resources, get them to China faster and in larger volumes. It's exactly the same thing as before. The Chinese, too, paternalistic and nationalist as they are, see themselves often as "civilising" the continent. Just like the Europeans before them.


Now, however, this is beginning to look like a real possibility. None thanks to China. If anything it's only a fleeting result of the independence, and in some places, the domestic control over natural resources (in most places that are doing well - oil and ores.) China is a parasitic appendage that, like the Europeans, is willing to invest because it sees the potential for profit: there is no goodness here, it is the same old rotten capitalism, and if you cannot judge it for what it is, you need to take off the blindfolds.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I always thought a lot of "Anti-Imperialists" were just "alter-imperialists" and, welp, this thread certainly proves that.

I don't understand how you could honestly mistake me for any kind of "anti-imperialist".
I completely reject Trotsky's "Popular Front" tactic, am critical of Stalin's "United Front" strategy and position myself with Karl Kaustky on the Peasant Question.

I am for the independent, united Party organization of all wage dependent workers. Sure, i sympathize with 20th century third world national liberation struggles and the like, but history has shown where 'Anti-Imperialism' ends up.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I don't understand how you could honestly mistake me for any kind of "anti-imperialist".
I completely reject Trotsky's "Popular Front" tactic, am critical of Stalin's "United Front" strategy and position myself with Karl Kaustky on the Peasant Question.

I am for the independent, united Party organization of all wage dependent workers. Sure, i sympathize with 20th century third world national liberation struggles and the like, but history has shown where 'Anti-Imperialism' ends up.

It has to do with your sympathetic interpretation of Chinese capital investment in Africa.

[Paul Cockshott]

The problem with this argument is obvious: Chinese investors aren't required to "export" anything to Africa. You are glossing over why China is investing in Ethiopia. In fact, you're completely ignoring specifics and instead saying completely obvious statements dressed up in pseudo-Marxian mumbo jumbo that really don't add anything new to the discussion.
Why are they likely to export capital to Africa?
Because the rising organic composition of capital in China is leading to the rate of profit there falling. I have calculated capital stock figures for China from the China Statistical year book using the permanent inventory method and calculated the organic composition see figure 3 here :http://academia.edu/1078138/From_Adam_Smith_to_the_dynamics_of_the_profit_rate
and compare it with Japan shown in Figure 2. You see that China is reaching the stage of capitalist development that Japan reached some 30 or so years earlier. As the internal reserve army dries up and the organic composition rises, we can expect the country to start having to export capital as Japan did. Japan had the option of exporting means of production to China and Indo China. With reserves of labour used up in these areas, the remaining likely destinations are Africa, India and the Muslim world. Political rivalry tends to rule out India, so that Africa and the Muslim world are the likely destination.

We know that Japanese capital exports significantly accelerated industrialisation and the formation of an industrial working class in the destination areas of Japanese capital exports in the late 20th century so we can anticipate a similar effect of Chinese exports to Africa.


So imperialism only exists in the classical sense of literal empire, and the complicity of national governments on the behalf of foreign powers to advance their own interests doesn't count as imperialism.

Yes. Only where there is explicit occupation of the country by an imperial power does it make sense to base the strategy of the workers parties on an anti-imperialist alliance. If that doctrine continues after national independence is gained, the cost is the subordination of the workers party to the national bourgeoisie.