These are soft power projection projects. You would recognize them as such if it were the US doing it (which we used to before Trump decided it was woke), so why do you stick to the Chinese state narrative here?
Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, genuinely helping poor countries develop is a pretty good way to gain soft power.
No one here, and I do mean no one, is saying that China isn’t gaining anything from doing that. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad for the other party or hides some nefarious secret purpose either. Diplomacy isn’t a zero sum gain where if China gain from a deal therefore the other party has to lose to compensate, that’s not how international relations work.
Because China isn’t imperialist, it isn’t dominated by finance capital and isn’t super-exploiting the global south. Imperialism isn’t a policy preference, it’s what happens when capitalism reaches its domestic limits. China doesn’t have the same economic forces that push the US Empire into imperialism.
China does gain international credibility from these mutual cooperation projects, sure, but since they are mutually beneficial that isn’t a bad thing. Further, Trump still exerts soft power, it wasn’t because it was “woke” but because it’s expensive and imperialism is declining. The US Empire is pivoting towards hard power now that US soft power is dying.
This isn’t true though, as I elaborate on over here. China doesn’t seek to own everything, nor does it debt trap. In fact, it frequently forgives billions in debt. China’s goal in Africa is mutual, win-win development, as long term cooperation benefits everyone more greatly than western imperialism does.
The US, Canada, Europe, etc, in being dominated by finance capital and the profit motive, are ecomomically compelled into the strategy of keeping the global south underdeveloped so as to super-exploit them for cheap labor and resources. The PRC is socialist, though, and the finance industry is dominated by the state, meaning long-term planning and mutual development is not only possible, but economically compelled.
There’s lots of other links that discount your denial of their plans and how they leverage.
USA is like 5 year plan, 10 year plan. China has 100 year plan and 1000 year plan.
China does have long-term planning, I’m not disputing that, I’m disputing the idea that China is predatory towards the global south. These narratives are largely pushed by the west in order to scare the global south away from pivoting to China, whose mutual cooperation programs are proven to result in dramatic and rapid development.
I just don’t want to confuse capitalism vs socialism, with Global Domination strategy of USA or China.
They are “socialist” but they aren’t doing it out of the idea of greater good of all humankind, they are a dictatorship (currently) and this is self interest so they can be a global logistic player and their port building also includes military access.
This is a longterm goal to be the only superpower.
We can’t understand why the US Empire’s international interactions result in underdevelopment, super-exploitation, and occasionally bombings, coups, and genocide, while China’s international interactions result in mutual development, cooperation, and advancement in the global south, without comparing their modes of production. I don’t bring up capitalism and socialism because “capitalism bad, therefore international interactions with capitalist countries bad” or “socialism good, therefore socialist interaction internationally good,” but because the mode of production is what drives these fundamentally different results.
In capitalism, once the limits of domestic markets are reached, contradictions sharpen unless this exploitation is extended and exported internationally. This is primarily characterized by the presense of monopolies and the dictatorship of finance capital, and the export of capital to the global south. Essentially, as capitalism reaches its natural limits, it’s artificially extended by pushing it outward.
In socialism, as in China, humanity is in control, not capital. China’s state has control of the finance sector, not capitalists, and the profit motive isn’t dominant over production and distribution. This means China takes a long-term strategy of mutual development, not out of the good of their hearts, but because socialism as a mode of production simply works better with mutual cooperation and international stability. Where capitalist countries prey on lesser developed ones, resulting in slowed development in the global south, socialist countries seek cooperation and this results in rapid development.
They are “socialist” but they aren’t doing it out of the idea of greater good of all humankind, they are a dictatorship (currently)
China is a dictatotship of the proletariat. The working classes control the state, and this results in huge rates of satisfaction with democracy in China:
and this is self interest so they can be a global logistic player and their port building also includes military access. This is a longterm goal to be the only superpower.
This is projection. China’s self-interest is in mutual development and stability, China has no interest in being a super-power, because the utility in being a super-power is only to super-exploit the global south. It’s incredibly expensive and resource intensive to maintain an empire, and while imperialists make this back in super-profits, this is a temporary measure, as the current death of the US Empire is proving. China wants to continue to prosper, and it needs a developed global south and international stability to do so.
People leaving countries tend to not like them as much as those who choose to stay. Lots of people left China after the communists first took power. I work with a few Chinese ex-pats, and they don’t seem to dislike China at all, and visit often. Moreover, people within China approve their government at rates exceeding 90%. This is consistent and regularly found. You’re trying to paint a negative picture on the web, but the vast majority of Chinese citizens seem to like China, despite your fearmongering.
I implore you to actually listen to Chinese citizens, and hard data showing consistent and strong satisfaction within China. You seem to be working backwards from the conclusion “China bad,” and jump to any evidence backing that, no matter how flimsy.
I have read, and China is absolutely not doing “the same thing just through financial means.” Financial domination secured with millitant means is the western method. China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:
There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.
It’s clear at this point: participation in BRI results in sustained and rapid development and mutual cooperation, and working with the west results in sustained impoverishment. It appears that you believe any cooperation between more developed and less developed countries is inherently imperialist, and impossible to be mutually beneficial. I’d like to see proof.
As a side-note, this is also why I hate the “go read” argument in online discourse. Reading very well can be the answer, but the other user isn’t going to do it unless they have a compelling reason to take your advice. This goes for Marxists that tell other users to read as well.
The only thing clear is if yoy do business with them they will take control of whatever it is they build. And acti g like they wont use it for military means when needed is a childs mentality.
Linking a bunch of people fearmongering about China’s increasing presense in Africa doesn’t actually mean this is to take away sovereignty from African countries. China gains from this mutual cooperation, but so do African countries, and unlike the west China doesn’t force trade at the barrel of a gun. That’s part of why it’s mutally beneficial, and results in development in Africa, vs underdevelopment and western enrichment.
All this really proves is that you have a deeply chauvanistic view of China, assuming that every country is as evil as the west. The simple reason why China isn’t economically compelled to imperialize is because it isn’t dominated by finance capital, and thus prioritizes long-term results. It’s simply better for everyone for there to be mutual cooperation, but western countries are dominated by the profit motive and finance capital, which compels them to take short term gains via looting the global south.
I suggest you read the articles I have already linked, they help debunk the fearmongering from your gish-gallop.
Your articles keep talking about “increasing Chinese millitary domination” despite a whopping 3 millitary bases overseas. China has a defensive millitary and benefits from stability and development in the global south, while NATO has hundreds of bases and installs compradors, coups, forces austerity, and more.
I think it is more that Americans are so used to extractive austerity and warfunding/fighting that we’ve completely forgot that economies can build civil society.
I dont have to try. Theyre selling everything to the chinese already. Acting like china wont use these for military opperations when needed is just stupid
Chinese firms are present in over a third of all African port developments, some of which COULD be used for expanded Chinese naval presence on the continent.
wooooow it could be used jesus christ we need to stop that.
It does if youre literate. Thats a tall ask on here though.
China gains as much as $13 in trade revenues for every $1 invested in ports. A firm holding an operating lease or concession agreement reaps not only the financial benefits of all trade passing through that port but can also control access
Chinese firms hold operating concessions in 10 African ports. Despite the risks over loss of control, the trend on the continent is toward privatizing
Ports in which Chinese firms have equity arrangements provide similar leverage over port operations. Notably, under China’s technical standards for “military civil fusion” (junmin ronghe; 军民融合), many Chinese state owned commercial shipping and civilian air cargo capabilities meet military specifications for defense logistics purposes.
China gains, so do the countries it trades with. Nobody is performing charity here, but mutual cooperation. You keep confusing potential for millitarization with active domination, because you’re working backwards from the conclusion that China is trying to dominate Africa and looking for any evidence to confirm that for you. Looking at the actual material facts, though, this is far from the truth.
China has mutual development projects in Africa, the reason is because in the long run mutual development benefits everyone.
These are soft power projection projects. You would recognize them as such if it were the US doing it (which we used to before Trump decided it was woke), so why do you stick to the Chinese state narrative here?
Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, genuinely helping poor countries develop is a pretty good way to gain soft power.
No one here, and I do mean no one, is saying that China isn’t gaining anything from doing that. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad for the other party or hides some nefarious secret purpose either. Diplomacy isn’t a zero sum gain where if China gain from a deal therefore the other party has to lose to compensate, that’s not how international relations work.
Because China isn’t imperialist, it isn’t dominated by finance capital and isn’t super-exploiting the global south. Imperialism isn’t a policy preference, it’s what happens when capitalism reaches its domestic limits. China doesn’t have the same economic forces that push the US Empire into imperialism.
China does gain international credibility from these mutual cooperation projects, sure, but since they are mutually beneficial that isn’t a bad thing. Further, Trump still exerts soft power, it wasn’t because it was “woke” but because it’s expensive and imperialism is declining. The US Empire is pivoting towards hard power now that US soft power is dying.
While it does have benefits, the overarching Chinese plan is to own everything, and have countries on the debt hook.
USA is the world bully by might, China does it by strategy
I love unsourced conspiracy theories
This isn’t true though, as I elaborate on over here. China doesn’t seek to own everything, nor does it debt trap. In fact, it frequently forgives billions in debt. China’s goal in Africa is mutual, win-win development, as long term cooperation benefits everyone more greatly than western imperialism does.
The US, Canada, Europe, etc, in being dominated by finance capital and the profit motive, are ecomomically compelled into the strategy of keeping the global south underdeveloped so as to super-exploit them for cheap labor and resources. The PRC is socialist, though, and the finance industry is dominated by the state, meaning long-term planning and mutual development is not only possible, but economically compelled.
There’s lots of other links that discount your denial of their plans and how they leverage. USA is like 5 year plan, 10 year plan. China has 100 year plan and 1000 year plan.
More evidence free assertions
China does have long-term planning, I’m not disputing that, I’m disputing the idea that China is predatory towards the global south. These narratives are largely pushed by the west in order to scare the global south away from pivoting to China, whose mutual cooperation programs are proven to result in dramatic and rapid development.
I just don’t want to confuse capitalism vs socialism, with Global Domination strategy of USA or China.
They are “socialist” but they aren’t doing it out of the idea of greater good of all humankind, they are a dictatorship (currently) and this is self interest so they can be a global logistic player and their port building also includes military access. This is a longterm goal to be the only superpower.
We can’t understand why the US Empire’s international interactions result in underdevelopment, super-exploitation, and occasionally bombings, coups, and genocide, while China’s international interactions result in mutual development, cooperation, and advancement in the global south, without comparing their modes of production. I don’t bring up capitalism and socialism because “capitalism bad, therefore international interactions with capitalist countries bad” or “socialism good, therefore socialist interaction internationally good,” but because the mode of production is what drives these fundamentally different results.
In capitalism, once the limits of domestic markets are reached, contradictions sharpen unless this exploitation is extended and exported internationally. This is primarily characterized by the presense of monopolies and the dictatorship of finance capital, and the export of capital to the global south. Essentially, as capitalism reaches its natural limits, it’s artificially extended by pushing it outward.
In socialism, as in China, humanity is in control, not capital. China’s state has control of the finance sector, not capitalists, and the profit motive isn’t dominant over production and distribution. This means China takes a long-term strategy of mutual development, not out of the good of their hearts, but because socialism as a mode of production simply works better with mutual cooperation and international stability. Where capitalist countries prey on lesser developed ones, resulting in slowed development in the global south, socialist countries seek cooperation and this results in rapid development.
China is a dictatotship of the proletariat. The working classes control the state, and this results in huge rates of satisfaction with democracy in China:
This is projection. China’s self-interest is in mutual development and stability, China has no interest in being a super-power, because the utility in being a super-power is only to super-exploit the global south. It’s incredibly expensive and resource intensive to maintain an empire, and while imperialists make this back in super-profits, this is a temporary measure, as the current death of the US Empire is proving. China wants to continue to prosper, and it needs a developed global south and international stability to do so.
That is why they are fundamentally different.
From ex pats of China, they disagree with you that there is huge rates of satisfaction or “democracy”.
You are trying to paint a pleasant picture on the web, but people who have left it disagree with you.
You really trying to counter polling and evidence with “well I talked to a guy who said otherwise”?
People leaving countries tend to not like them as much as those who choose to stay. Lots of people left China after the communists first took power. I work with a few Chinese ex-pats, and they don’t seem to dislike China at all, and visit often. Moreover, people within China approve their government at rates exceeding 90%. This is consistent and regularly found. You’re trying to paint a negative picture on the web, but the vast majority of Chinese citizens seem to like China, despite your fearmongering.
I implore you to actually listen to Chinese citizens, and hard data showing consistent and strong satisfaction within China. You seem to be working backwards from the conclusion “China bad,” and jump to any evidence backing that, no matter how flimsy.
And I know an expat family from China who are communists and broadly support China and the CPC.
Tit for tat anecdotes don’t Trump actual data.
No. Its not. Go read about their lease agreements. Theyre doing the same thing just through financial means.
“go read this thing I haven’t read, I assume it supports my argument”
Me telling people to read Capital
Join comrade @oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 2026 Capital reading group! They just started, you can absolutely catch up!
You have the perseverance of a saint
🫡
I have read, and China is absolutely not doing “the same thing just through financial means.” Financial domination secured with millitant means is the western method. China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:
Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa
China debt trap? PH an ‘expert in bad loans,’ Locsin says
Deborah Brautigam Debunks the Chinese Debt Trap Theory in New Research Paper
China’s Debt Relief for Africa: Emerging Deliberations
There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.
It’s clear at this point: participation in BRI results in sustained and rapid development and mutual cooperation, and working with the west results in sustained impoverishment. It appears that you believe any cooperation between more developed and less developed countries is inherently imperialist, and impossible to be mutually beneficial. I’d like to see proof.
As a side-note, this is also why I hate the “go read” argument in online discourse. Reading very well can be the answer, but the other user isn’t going to do it unless they have a compelling reason to take your advice. This goes for Marxists that tell other users to read as well.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3335506/skin-game-china-pivots-operating-african-railways-ports-funding-shift
https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/harbors-of-power-how-chinas-african-ports-are-shaping-indias-ocean-strategy/
https://www.extremarationews.com/post/china-s-expanding-military-footprint-presence-and-strategy-in-the-red-sea-mediterranean-and-north
https://www.enr.com/articles/60580-china-port-construction-in-africa-raises-concern-about-military-use
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Ek6HZ5nD4&t=670
https://newsletter.boundlessdiscovery.com/p/ports-of-power-china-s-expanding-grip-on-africa-s-trade-gateways
The only thing clear is if yoy do business with them they will take control of whatever it is they build. And acti g like they wont use it for military means when needed is a childs mentality.
Linking a bunch of people fearmongering about China’s increasing presense in Africa doesn’t actually mean this is to take away sovereignty from African countries. China gains from this mutual cooperation, but so do African countries, and unlike the west China doesn’t force trade at the barrel of a gun. That’s part of why it’s mutally beneficial, and results in development in Africa, vs underdevelopment and western enrichment.
All this really proves is that you have a deeply chauvanistic view of China, assuming that every country is as evil as the west. The simple reason why China isn’t economically compelled to imperialize is because it isn’t dominated by finance capital, and thus prioritizes long-term results. It’s simply better for everyone for there to be mutual cooperation, but western countries are dominated by the profit motive and finance capital, which compels them to take short term gains via looting the global south.
I suggest you read the articles I have already linked, they help debunk the fearmongering from your gish-gallop.
Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa
China debt trap? PH an ‘expert in bad loans,’ Locsin says
Deborah Brautigam Debunks the Chinese Debt Trap Theory in New Research Paper
China’s Debt Relief for Africa: Emerging Deliberations
Your articles keep talking about “increasing Chinese millitary domination” despite a whopping 3 millitary bases overseas. China has a defensive millitary and benefits from stability and development in the global south, while NATO has hundreds of bases and installs compradors, coups, forces austerity, and more.
meanwhile in the real world https://jasonhickel.substack.com/p/is-china-doing-colonialism-in-africa
Construction projects =/= military occupation, try harder
I think it is more that Americans are so used to extractive austerity and warfunding/fighting that we’ve completely forgot that economies can build civil society.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/
I dont have to try. Theyre selling everything to the chinese already. Acting like china wont use these for military opperations when needed is just stupid
wooooow it could be used jesus christ we need to stop that.
Your car could in theory be used to run over 100s of pedestrian and commit manslaughter! THAT MAKES YOU A TERRORIST!!!
The finger that you are using to point at me could be used to fire a gun. You’re the murderer here.
This does absolutely nothing to support your dumbass claims, try again
It does if youre literate. Thats a tall ask on here though.
China gains as much as $13 in trade revenues for every $1 invested in ports. A firm holding an operating lease or concession agreement reaps not only the financial benefits of all trade passing through that port but can also control access
Chinese firms hold operating concessions in 10 African ports. Despite the risks over loss of control, the trend on the continent is toward privatizing
Ports in which Chinese firms have equity arrangements provide similar leverage over port operations. Notably, under China’s technical standards for “military civil fusion” (junmin ronghe; 军民融合), many Chinese state owned commercial shipping and civilian air cargo capabilities meet military specifications for defense logistics purposes.
You’ve got nothing and you know it
China gains, so do the countries it trades with. Nobody is performing charity here, but mutual cooperation. You keep confusing potential for millitarization with active domination, because you’re working backwards from the conclusion that China is trying to dominate Africa and looking for any evidence to confirm that for you. Looking at the actual material facts, though, this is far from the truth.
🤡
deleted by creator