As far as I'm aware, China has been giving loans to various countries in Africa and building infrastructure in exchange for money and maybe some stuff like recognizing Taiwan as part of China. But why do people say China is imperialist for doing this? Is there truth to it or is it another strain of radlibs eating state department propaganda?

  • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Imperialism isn't just "when the government influences another country".

    The basic features of imperialism Lenin identified in Imperialism:

    (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

    Mutually beneficially trade deals or infrastructure investments are not imperialist. Doing things for other countries in order to gain support from them is just diplomacy.

    • Ryan_Holman [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      What do you call it when a government is trying to increase its hegemony over other governments?

      • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        Hegemony is a loaded term. Trying to influence other governments is just trying to influence other governments. China is a relatively powerful country, but the underlying logic behind its support of African economies isn't imperialist due to the structure of their state and economy (i.e., not being controlled by a capitalist oligarchy). It's more similar in nature to the relationship between Cuba or the DPRK and post-colonial African governments, but takes the form of large infrastructure projects because China is actually capable of funding them. And obviously it's not purely altruistic, because China's still a developing country and still needs allies to support it in the struggle against American imperialism, etc., but that doesn't make the relationship exploitative.

        China doesn't impose particular economic policies on the African countries they deal with, frequently forgives debts and offers interest-free loans, doesn't invade or sanction African countries, etc. Basically, they aren't doing any of the things colonial and neocolonial powers have done to subjugate African nations. They're just making mutually beneficial deals that both undermine predatory imperialist international financing institutions and drive the development of both China and Africa.

        Check out this interview with a Zambian socialist presidential candidate where he talks about China's relationship with Africa: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKEq0fCggI

        • Ryan_Holman [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          To me, imperialism is when one government tries to increase its own power and influence, usually by getting control over countries (be it outright or with regards to certain policies).

          • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            Ok, but that's literally all governments. Not even just every state - every polity has a stake in strengthening itself. That doesn't seem like a very useful definition.

            • Ryan_Holman [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              I didn't word it very well initially. Namely, I updated the comment to include that another part of it getting control of other countries.

        • Ryan_Holman [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          I think so.

          Now, I fully acknowledge that they aren't forcing anybody to join them (although its often a case of a government having to choose between BRI loans and worse IMF loans, so they have to do something).

          This may not be the most accurate comparison, but I think it would be analogous to the Marshall Plan, in that something beneficial to governments is brought forth, but the recipient cedes hegemony to the lender.