They aren’t doing the “same sort of action,” though. Finland is not building up dramatic industry nor is it trying to access minerals to produce for customers, but rather is trying to access cheap labor forces to produce goods for itself. I quite clearly showed why it’s entirely different, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Finland is not building up the Global South, but looting it, while China must build up the Global South in order to have customers. Here’s a post from a Marxist perspective, with good resources linked at the bottom.
All countries will inevitably have different levels of power. By labeling any interaction between more and less powerful countries “exploitation,” you mask the real differences between the character and scale of interactions. The countries in BRI are benefiting tremendously from increased development, including higher life expectancies, purchasing power, wages, and more, but the same traditionally is not the case in traditional Western Imperialism as depressing wages is what drives the benefits of overseas production. China wants their wages to rise so they can buy more Chinese goods, Finland wants wages to fall so production is cheaper. Very different.
I think you need to look more critically and less ideologically.
China is also buying stuff to benefit from cheaper labour where there’s advantage in that. It’s just how trade works for pretty much every single country in a global economy. Every country is serving their domestic interests. You’re kidding yourself if you think China doing the same is better somehow than Finland doing it.
China isn’t exactly a struggling economy having to trade to survive. They’re benefiting from other countries same as Finland. It’s just that Finnish economy has largely moved away from manufacturing and has bigger sectors elsewhere whereas China hasn’t yet.
Not that Finland being economically in the same situation as China would actually change anything for the people at the other end of the trade.
China doesn’t want labour costs to rise because it hits them too but they want them ro rise to be able to sell higher end products. That’s not different to Finland either. Benefits to both. Both neither Finland nor China want their imports to be more expensive (while wanting to export more expensive stuff)
I think you need to look more critically and less ideologically.
China is not exporting its production, it is relying on its own production. Trade isn’t inherently exploitative. You’re correct in saying that every country works for its own interests, my point is that because of the systemic makeup of the PRC’s economy this drives the best path to their own interests being more cooperative than exploitative, as their economy relies on exports more than imports. They aren’t offshoring their production with immense private backing and intentionally depressing wages in the Global South, they want conditions to improve so their investment money returns multiple in sales due to increased wages.
And yes, I am a Communist. I am a Communist because I critically examine these systems. China is not free from sin nor a perfect Utopia, but it isn’t Imperialist either and to equate its involvement in quantity or quality to Finland is something that can only be attributable to ideological basis, not critical.
Secondly, trade is not Capitalism. Capitalism is not trade. When people speak of that, it’s because consumption within a Capitalist framework will always go to the bourgeoisie and usually support Imperialism overseas, but that isn’t an inherent quality of trade.
China acts on the global market just as another player. It doesn’t matter a thing to the other country what ideology the trade partner claims to cherish, it’s the actions that matter.
It feels like you glossed over that I just said trade isn’t Capitalism. Your point relied on “there being no ethical consumption under Capitalism,” but that original analysis has nothing to do with the ideology of those producing goods, nor with trade. Trade is a mechanism employed by both Capitalist and Socialist systems, and isn’t inherently exploitative.
My entire point was that if the actions are the same (and they are) then it doesn’t matter one bit what the claimed ideology behind it is. You are the one worried about defining it through the ideology, for a fairly obvious reason. I’m just concerned about what the real interactions are.
They aren’t doing the “same sort of action,” though. Finland is not building up dramatic industry nor is it trying to access minerals to produce for customers, but rather is trying to access cheap labor forces to produce goods for itself. I quite clearly showed why it’s entirely different, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Finland is not building up the Global South, but looting it, while China must build up the Global South in order to have customers. Here’s a post from a Marxist perspective, with good resources linked at the bottom.
All countries will inevitably have different levels of power. By labeling any interaction between more and less powerful countries “exploitation,” you mask the real differences between the character and scale of interactions. The countries in BRI are benefiting tremendously from increased development, including higher life expectancies, purchasing power, wages, and more, but the same traditionally is not the case in traditional Western Imperialism as depressing wages is what drives the benefits of overseas production. China wants their wages to rise so they can buy more Chinese goods, Finland wants wages to fall so production is cheaper. Very different.
I think you need to look more critically and less ideologically.
China is also buying stuff to benefit from cheaper labour where there’s advantage in that. It’s just how trade works for pretty much every single country in a global economy. Every country is serving their domestic interests. You’re kidding yourself if you think China doing the same is better somehow than Finland doing it.
China isn’t exactly a struggling economy having to trade to survive. They’re benefiting from other countries same as Finland. It’s just that Finnish economy has largely moved away from manufacturing and has bigger sectors elsewhere whereas China hasn’t yet.
Not that Finland being economically in the same situation as China would actually change anything for the people at the other end of the trade.
China doesn’t want labour costs to rise because it hits them too but they want them ro rise to be able to sell higher end products. That’s not different to Finland either. Benefits to both. Both neither Finland nor China want their imports to be more expensive (while wanting to export more expensive stuff)
*looks at your entire account*
China is not exporting its production, it is relying on its own production. Trade isn’t inherently exploitative. You’re correct in saying that every country works for its own interests, my point is that because of the systemic makeup of the PRC’s economy this drives the best path to their own interests being more cooperative than exploitative, as their economy relies on exports more than imports. They aren’t offshoring their production with immense private backing and intentionally depressing wages in the Global South, they want conditions to improve so their investment money returns multiple in sales due to increased wages.
And yes, I am a Communist. I am a Communist because I critically examine these systems. China is not free from sin nor a perfect Utopia, but it isn’t Imperialist either and to equate its involvement in quantity or quality to Finland is something that can only be attributable to ideological basis, not critical.
It is also buying production for some sectors.
What’s the thing about no ethical consumption?
You need to do more investigation than just that.
Secondly, trade is not Capitalism. Capitalism is not trade. When people speak of that, it’s because consumption within a Capitalist framework will always go to the bourgeoisie and usually support Imperialism overseas, but that isn’t an inherent quality of trade.
China acts on the global market just as another player. It doesn’t matter a thing to the other country what ideology the trade partner claims to cherish, it’s the actions that matter.
It feels like you glossed over that I just said trade isn’t Capitalism. Your point relied on “there being no ethical consumption under Capitalism,” but that original analysis has nothing to do with the ideology of those producing goods, nor with trade. Trade is a mechanism employed by both Capitalist and Socialist systems, and isn’t inherently exploitative.
My entire point was that if the actions are the same (and they are) then it doesn’t matter one bit what the claimed ideology behind it is. You are the one worried about defining it through the ideology, for a fairly obvious reason. I’m just concerned about what the real interactions are.
The actions aren’t the same, though, and I explained and elaborated on why. You never engaged with it, but glossed over it.