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 are buying resources, their companies are operating there selling their products, extracting resources, having manufacturing, they’re importing their products to those countries. Those are the same.
No, they are not at all the same, and I explained why already. To put it another way, the average Chinese person lives off of far more Chinese labor, while the average person in the West lives off of far more Global South labor.
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.
They are buying resources, their companies are operating there selling their products, extracting resources, having manufacturing, they’re importing their products to those countries. Those are the same.
No, they are not at all the same, and I explained why already. To put it another way, the average Chinese person lives off of far more Chinese labor, while the average person in the West lives off of far more Global South labor.