As you correctly pointed out, by its embrace of capitalism , China (and for that matter capitalist India) can potentially can become imperialist if they continue along this path for long and far enough.

China certainly is relying more on the development of it's small-to-medium, as well as large capitalist industries and if I recall right, it was the China Daily newspaper which reported one of it's officials mentioning its private industries in a particular region was contributing more to its trade and foreign exchange revenue, than state-owned industries did before.

Just look at what support China gives to revolutionary Marxist-Leninist movements in the Philippines or Nepal, or Morth Korea for that matter -- zilch basically now, while at the same time it's investing, building railways and so on, especially in third-world countries, njot to mention attracting foreign investments by foreign multinationals to set up factories and assembly plants in itself and positively collaborating with the foreign investors.

So far, China's path is essentially that of a rapidly developing third-world country, emerging from its economic and technological backwardness and I see its development and policies as essentially national -- ie. for itself the the face of imperialist pressure upon it.

It's also trying to extend its economic influence in the region and is alredy playing the role of a major imperialist bloc, like the European Union and North America.

Check these out

With few exceptions, the European Union countries, as well as the United States have few colonies any more but their modus operandi is penetration of markets with their goods and services, including banking and finances, though China still has a weak presence in banking and financial services outside China.

Modern imperialism or neo-colonialism achieves the same effect, minus the adminsitrative and defence costs of direct colonisation, and popular resentment created by direct colonisation, though it may have to share the spoils from each country and compete with companies from other imperilist countries, while under direct colonialism, companies from the colonial master enjoyed first-preference privileges, in terms of government contracts, import duties and so on.

Once people in respective countries see opportunities to work in multinational companies and even to be their local or regional head, there's hardly any personal reason to resent its presence but at the end of the day, the result is the same -- ie. that company extracts its surplus value off people in respective countries, helped by its citizens.

Not only China but Vietnam and to a lesser extent Cambodia and Laos have opened their doors to foreign investment, while claiming some kind of "new thinking" socialism.

The only true holdouts of socialism left are Cuba and North Korea.

As for Tibet. The national question arises as to its right to secede and moreover, we don't hear much about what the majority of the Tibetans in Tibet feel about their inclusion within China, and not what the Tibetan exiles, especially the Dalai Lama are saying but Tibet's independence will certainly be a victory for other imperialist powers, so I woudn't pay too much attention to the Trots.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Pollock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: [MLL] imperialist China?

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:

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date: 25/08/2006

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

Reply via email to