Comrade,
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
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=99145&vers
http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/08/13/china_poised_to_do
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=136605?FPRIVATE
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060718.wscotiashift0718/BNStory/Business
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH05Dj01.html
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/08/03/business/pro
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/134339print.asp
http://english.people.com.cn/200608/02/eng20060802_289203.html
http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/China_To_Modernize_Military_And_Reunify_Tai
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=44738&NewsKin
http://www.cio.com/archive/071506/china.html
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1084472006
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.
Charles
- 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
suppo
