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 builds up countries it deals with, the West keeps them underdeveloped and over-exploited. I already showed how that is, so I will not copy and paste what I already did.
Somehow China doing the exact same business is mutually beneficial trade to uplift them both and Finland doing that business is imperialistic exploitation. Come on now friend.
My point has never been that their actions are the same. You boiled down complex relations to simple “trade,” when the complexities and directions make it entirely different in outcome. That’s like saying a surgeon and a knife-murderer are the same, because they both cut people.
I’m just saying since both do the same actions with the same effect on the country, it doesn’t make much difference to the country in question. So I would judge them the same. But I think there might be a bit of an ideological bent at play here.
They don’t do the same actions, and they don’t have the same effect. I already explained some of the complexities back here. I’m sure there is an ideological bent at play trying to make you see Finland’s documented Imperialism in a way that surely can’t be any worse than a non-Western country.
Again, Finland’s consumption is largely the labor of the Global South, and as such has played a role in depressing wages. China’s consumption is largely its own labor, and since it needs to export commodities, it focuses on improving wages in the Global South and takes a multilateral approach, as its most profitable for them to raise up more customers.
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.
And what’s exactly the difference for the other country?
China builds up countries it deals with, the West keeps them underdeveloped and over-exploited. I already showed how that is, so I will not copy and paste what I already did.
Somehow China doing the exact same business is mutually beneficial trade to uplift them both and Finland doing that business is imperialistic exploitation. Come on now friend.
As I said earlier, they are not doing the exact same business. Feel free to go back earlier in the thread!
You claimed so and your point was that China is just built different (but the actions are actually same). That’s what makes this amusing.
My point has never been that their actions are the same. You boiled down complex relations to simple “trade,” when the complexities and directions make it entirely different in outcome. That’s like saying a surgeon and a knife-murderer are the same, because they both cut people.
I’m just saying since both do the same actions with the same effect on the country, it doesn’t make much difference to the country in question. So I would judge them the same. But I think there might be a bit of an ideological bent at play here.
They don’t do the same actions, and they don’t have the same effect. I already explained some of the complexities back here. I’m sure there is an ideological bent at play trying to make you see Finland’s documented Imperialism in a way that surely can’t be any worse than a non-Western country.
Again, Finland’s consumption is largely the labor of the Global South, and as such has played a role in depressing wages. China’s consumption is largely its own labor, and since it needs to export commodities, it focuses on improving wages in the Global South and takes a multilateral approach, as its most profitable for them to raise up more customers.