It was recently said on this list that it is wrong to
call China imperialist.  That could be true, but I
don't think it is as simple as that, since China seems
to have features of imperialism.  

China has cooperated with imperialism in the UN and I
think I read that it sent troops to support the
occupation of Haiti (along with Lula's Brazil).  It
also had soldiers in Lebanon, although that was
probably not an occupation.  Why would China cooperate
with imperialism unless it is getting a benefit?  I
suppose they could be buying time before a war, but
they semingly weren't afraid of war when they were
technologically weaker, decades ago.  

China is moving towards capitalism, even if it isn't
capitalist now (that is another debate), so
theoretically shouldn't that mean that conditions are
emerging for Chinese imperialism, imperialism being
the modern variety of capitalism, even if it does not
yet exist in China?  China has many economic relations
with colonial or semi-colonial type countries, which
could potentially be imperialist relations.  Japan
hasn't had major external colonies since the end of
WWII, but it is considered an imperialist country. 
Therefore couldn't China be imperialist without
directly controlling colonies?  For example, what is
China's relationship with Nepal?  Given that China has
sent military supplies to Nepal, and is a huge
neighbor of Nepal, shouldn't that government be at
least slightly dependent on the Chinese?    

Is the reason Trotskyists call China imperialist the
issue of Tibet?  I don't know the recent history of
Tibet, so I can't say whether I think that counts as a
colony or not, but I can see other reasons to consider
Chinese imperialism to be an open question.  The most
aggressive and reactionary imperialism is the USA and
its main allies though.   

Michael Pollock     

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to