New Imperialist Powers

[Dimentio]

I would say that China today classifies as proto-imperialist, but what about other emergent regional powers, like India and Brazil, who got their own national bourgeoisie and own national capital? Would they not soon start to export their capitalist interests in the form of neo-colonialism in weaker third world nations?

[BobKKKindle$]

It is possible for a country to be a sub-imperial power, whereby a country is imperialist within a region, but is subject to imperialist exploitation on a global scale. China exhibits some of the features of imperialism (for example, the export of arms to Sudan, to maintain control of the Sudan's oil reserves) but it would be wrong to describe China as part of the imperialist bloc, because imperialism is a specific stage in the development of capitalism, and a stage which China has not yet reached.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm sorry, but China isn't imperialist. International trade and investment doesn't equal imperialism.

Imperialism: "The development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still 'reigns' and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the 'geniuses' of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit... the speculators." - Lenin

Today, the imperialist powers are the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, Japan, Australia, Portugal, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy and Belgium.

Those countries became imperialist through historical development. They are now dominant (with the U.S. being especially dominant). The world is divided up between them (though they often spar with each for control of various places). The imperialists aren't going to relinquish their positions... they're constantly looking for more. Other imperialist powers aren't just going to spring up from among the previously imperialist-oppressed countries.

There irony of the claims by some "leftists" in the imperialist countries that condemn "imperialist China" is that they're actually lining up with their own (real) imperialists who would love nothing more than to reassert their domination over China.

[Yehuda Stern]

I do not think there's any possibility of new imperialist powers emerging. The decay of capitalism and the imperialist system has finalized the world's division into imperialist and third-world countries. China belongs to the latter category.

All countries, by the way, have some economic or political interests in some part of the world, and seek to defend these interests, even by military means: for example, the pseudo-Marxists' favorite, Cuba, in Angola. That does not suggest that they are imperialist. It merely suggests that they are capitalist states in the stage of imperialism, and that the economy is global. Imperialist states are states with a high organic composition of capital. Neither China nor Cuba have that characteristic.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

:rolleyes: What "political or economic" interests did Cuba have in Angola?

Of course they had none, and that's a fact that the capitalists don't even deny.

Cuba's mission in Angola -- to which they were invited by the MPLA -- was internationalist in character. They didn't take one grain of sand from Angola.

[Dimentio]

I will not argue against that Brazil and India are exploited countries, but I would not say that China is a tool for the First World. Of course the First World uses China, but China is also using the First World.

China holds some interests in Africa, and is for example an adent supporter of Zimbabwe and Sudan, which is rewarded by contracts. The West does'nt like that, so they try to put pressure on Zimbabwe and Sudan.

In a couple of decades, I bet we will see Chinese troops securing Chinese interests abroad.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I will not argue against that Brazil and India are exploited countries, but I would not say that China is a tool for the First World. Of course the First World uses China, but China is also using the First World.

China holds some interests in Africa, and is for example an adent supporter of Zimbabwe and Sudan, which is rewarded by contracts. The West does'nt like that, so they try to put pressure on Zimbabwe and Sudan.

In a couple of decades, I bet we will see Chinese troops securing Chinese interests abroad.


There won't be enough troops to do that. Most of them are used to police China, the rest will be retired and not replaced (due to the aging population glut) or they will die of environmentally related diseases.

[Yehuda Stern]

Of course they had none, and that's a fact that the capitalists don't even deny.

Of course, it was not a struggle between Western and Soviet imperialism. Of course, Cuba wasn't on the side of Soviet imperialism. Of course, Cuba was not used by the USSR as a satellite for such interventions in Africa. Of course, you have nothing to back your ridiculous claim that the Castro regime, having stabbed in the back both the people of Eritrea and Kuwait, among others, is internationalist in any way.


Of course the First World uses China, but China is also using the First World.


That's always true to some extent, but I suppose you'll agree that the workers are exploited to a far greater degree in China than in, say, the USA (although they are exploited in both countries).


In a couple of decades, I bet we will see Chinese troops securing Chinese interests abroad.

Maybe. Like I said, that's not the definition of imperialism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course, it was not a struggle between Western and Soviet imperialism. Of course, Cuba wasn't on the side of Soviet imperialism. Of course, Cuba was not used by the USSR as a satellite for such interventions in Africa. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Cuba didn't even notify the USSR before it sent troops to Angola. See the book "Conflicting Missions" for documentary proof of this.


Of course, you have nothing to back your ridiculous claim that the Castro regime, having stabbed in the back both the people of Eritrea and Kuwait, among others, is internationalist in any way.Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Cuban military aid in the Horn of Africa served to defend revolutionary Ethiopia from an invasion by Somalia, which was acting as a proxy of imperialism. Cuba argued for a negotiated end to the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Over three million people in 28 countries have learned to read in the last 8 years thanks to the "Yo si puedo" literacy system developed by Cuba (http://cubatruthproject.org/revolutionarycuba/sum08c.html), for which Cuba has asked nothing in return. Thousands upon thousands of Cuban doctors and teachers have served and continue to serve abroad assisting their working class brothers and sisters and asking nothing in return.. something no capitalist country has even been willing or able to do. Not even another socialist country has ever given what Cuba has given in relation to what it has to work with.

Don't be so blinded by your own ideology to ignore the reality of the sacrifices Cuban people have made to assist others.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well going back to the discussion, at the rate that China's economy is growing I don't see how its not possible for China to become a new imperialist power.

I mean I would doubt India, and Brazil, but not China.

[OI OI OI]

Today, the imperialist powers are the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, Japan, Australia, Portugal, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy and Belgium.
I would argue that Russia is one of them although it doesn't yet meet Lenin's definition 100%.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

On what basis would you argue that Russia is imperialist?

[gla22]

Well going back to the discussion, at the rate that China's economy is growing I don't see how its not possible for China to become a new imperialist power.

I mean I would doubt India, and Brazil, but not China.
India is growing at about the same pace as China.

[Colonello Buendia]

china's heading in that direction, the "first world" so to speak is

[OI OI OI]

On what basis would you argue that Russia is imperialist?
Its striving to control Ukraine through threats of cutting its gas supply , its striving to control Serbia politically and economically, its invasion with tanks on a part that belonged to Georgia I think just a few months ago and the continuation of oppressing Chechens.

[BobKKKindle$]

China is not part of the imperialist bloc, and to categorize China in this way indicates a failure to understand what imperialism actually is. Imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism and is the final (or highest) stage prior to the abolition of capitalism through socialist revolution, and is also characterized by several features, including the predominance of the export of capital (foreign investment) relative to the export of goods, which enables a country to generate income from overseas assets. The extent to which a country exhibits these features can be used to determine whether a country is part of the imperialist bloc. China's balance of payments has consistently shown a surplus in both the capital account (which measures financial flows, including but not limited to foreign investment) and the current account, but measured in terms of total monetary value, the current account is still the most important section of China's balance of payments. This is shown by the following selection of statistics: China's Balance of Payments Maintains a Twin Surplus in the First Half of 2007 (http://www.safe.gov.cn/model_safe_en/news_en/new_detail_en.jsp?ID=30100000000000000,166&type=&id=2)

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that China is not part of the imperialist bloc.


In a couple of decades, I bet we will see Chinese troops securing Chinese interests abroad.

This is not a key feature of imperialism, although many imperialist states have resorted to the use of armed force to defend overseas economic interests, when such interests have been threatened by radical governments or other imperialist powers. China's overseas interests are mainly related to economic resources (not investment assets) which are necessary to sustain a high rate of economic growth.

[A New Era]

The next 20-30 years will be very interesting.

The U.S. will be a midget compared to China and India. And if we consider the power of the U.S. today, imagine the power of China and India tomorrow.