would the US be not imperialist if canada and mexico would be against it? doesn’t China have a military presence in africa? is that just different somehow?
You ignored the military base part (the fact that one nation over the entire world has that) and the general implication of that. Canada is another Western settler nation with a similar historical background that would have zero reason to have competing interests with the U.S even in the 1900s (unless over minor things, if you really want to get pedantic). Mexico and the rest of Latin America is a GREAT example, actually.
Look at the history of military intervention and how the capitalists of the West completely stripped and destroyed these nations and keep them subservient under IMF debt/leverage. A nation like Venezuela; whom is against it; is mercilessly lambasted, sanctioned and attacked at every opportunity. That’s why they AREN’T against it (Mexico and America or any other Latin American nation). This is what that one user meant by a “materialist view”. That view Venezuela has is also known as “siege mentality” if you want to look it up in a more formal sense.
You’re vaguely gesturing towards Belt and Road initiatives with a doomer mindset that obviously it must be imperialism. Meanwhile, Belt and Road actually provides tangible support and direct aid to Africa unlike the IMF handing a massive bag of cash to local despots and warlords beholden to private and/or Western interests that further indebt the nation.
Do you really want me to sit here and describe the amount of times that happened vs actual railroads/infrastructure built by China? Do you understand how much they’re undercutting IMF loans and how little leverage/debt they undergo compared to the IMF, the main financier arm of the global West who pushes these nations into poverty either economically or if not, a regime change??
It helps to think of imperialism and neoimperialism as parasitic relations between privileged states and unprivileged ones. Beijing is almost certainly expecting some mutual benefits in the long term from its investments, but I have not seen anything suggesting that said investments are highly conditional or designed to keep the recipients dependent on them indefinitely.
That is what distinguishes the PRC from neoimperialist régimes like Imperial America, which value immediate returns and bully unprivileged states (e.g. Panama) into submission when they try to grow independently.
Why are you not answering any of the questions you have been asked and brought up Canada and Mexico instead (Which, by the way, if we had done you would 100% be screeching WhaTaBOuTisM at us)?
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
would the US be not imperialist if canada and mexico would be against it? doesn’t China have a military presence in africa? is that just different somehow?
You ignored the military base part (the fact that one nation over the entire world has that) and the general implication of that. Canada is another Western settler nation with a similar historical background that would have zero reason to have competing interests with the U.S even in the 1900s (unless over minor things, if you really want to get pedantic). Mexico and the rest of Latin America is a GREAT example, actually.
Look at the history of military intervention and how the capitalists of the West completely stripped and destroyed these nations and keep them subservient under IMF debt/leverage. A nation like Venezuela; whom is against it; is mercilessly lambasted, sanctioned and attacked at every opportunity. That’s why they AREN’T against it (Mexico and America or any other Latin American nation). This is what that one user meant by a “materialist view”. That view Venezuela has is also known as “siege mentality” if you want to look it up in a more formal sense.
You’re vaguely gesturing towards Belt and Road initiatives with a doomer mindset that obviously it must be imperialism. Meanwhile, Belt and Road actually provides tangible support and direct aid to Africa unlike the IMF handing a massive bag of cash to local despots and warlords beholden to private and/or Western interests that further indebt the nation.
Do you really want me to sit here and describe the amount of times that happened vs actual railroads/infrastructure built by China? Do you understand how much they’re undercutting IMF loans and how little leverage/debt they undergo compared to the IMF, the main financier arm of the global West who pushes these nations into poverty either economically or if not, a regime change??
It helps to think of imperialism and neoimperialism as parasitic relations between privileged states and unprivileged ones. Beijing is almost certainly expecting some mutual benefits in the long term from its investments, but I have not seen anything suggesting that said investments are highly conditional or designed to keep the recipients dependent on them indefinitely.
That is what distinguishes the PRC from neoimperialist régimes like Imperial America, which value immediate returns and bully unprivileged states (e.g. Panama) into submission when they try to grow independently.
There are examples of them writing off unpaid debt in favor of completing the projects to maintain a good relationship with the countries they are working with. They don’t seem to do this lightly, and sometimes it’s only the interest, not the entire loan, but it does happen. This difference in approach can be easily picked up in western media as well despite them often moving goal posts and not telling the entire story of IMF loan programs compared to BRI programs.
Why are you not answering any of the questions you have been asked and brought up Canada and Mexico instead (Which, by the way, if we had done you would 100% be screeching WhaTaBOuTisM at us)?
The profile picture while doing the “libertarian/anarchist just asking questions” bit has me thinking as well.
also, parenti quote
The quote
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.