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.
Your mentioned differences are more due to the size difference between Finland and China than anything else, but Finnish companies have been involved in infrastructure projects too.
I’m sure there is an ideological bent at play trying to make you see Finland’s documented Imperialism
Hah indeed.
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.
Finland (Finnish companies) is buying resources, involved in infrastructure projects, building factories, buying stuff they export. It’s just the same sort of business China does. China is just a much bigger player with a much more pronounced effect.
Read the sources I linked. There is both a quantitative and qualitative difference, and its driven by the fact that Finland deals with the Global South as an employer exploits an employee, and China deals with the Global South as a store selling to customers. Finnish people as a whole live similar to landlords, off the backs of others, while China lives off of its own labor and needs customers to sell to.
China also works as an employer, though they sometimes also bring their own workers for resource extraction which imo seems more exploitative tbh. Not sure China is doing imperialism when they are an employer if that’s what imperialism is.
For seemingly the dozenth time, I am asking you to read the sources. If you aren’t going to accept my explanations, then look at the sources.
Fundamentally, the manner in which China approaches trade is focused on multilateralism, not on relying on using an overseas workforce in order to export the largest misery and only keep the more privledged forms of labor domestically as Finland, and the rest of the West, does.
If you want to learn more about Imperialism specifically, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is an excellent work, and the underlying analysis of structures has continued to this day. Michael Hudson’s Super-Imperialism is US-focused, but continues that frame of analysis to the modern day.
I am looking at the sources but I am not seeing the exact difference. If a Chinese company and a Finnish company are both buying manufacturing, somehow one of them is imperialistic and the other isn’t. It’s just a very hard concept to understand. You’d think for the country at the other end and escpially on people level only the company that is paying the wages changes.
The problem is that you think the actions of China and Finland are the same in quantity and quality, hence your framing it as them “both buying manufacturing.”
I mean the situation I described is the same. A company buying manufacturing, exchanging money for labour and products, making use of the cheaper wages.
The situation you described is the same, but it isn’t an accurate picture of what’s going on on the ground. The outcomes are entirely different as well because of how different the involvement is. With Finland, the Global South is exploited and extracted from, with China, the Global South is developed. Finland wants to squeeze the Global South for all it has, while China wants to build up customers and make a profit along the way.
The terms are entirely different in the deals made with Finland vs China. Certainly you can see how higher interest rates, and requirements to sell off sovereignty of your resources may make one loan far more exploitative than a simple loan that may be forgiven, correct?
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.
Your mentioned differences are more due to the size difference between Finland and China than anything else, but Finnish companies have been involved in infrastructure projects too.
Hah indeed.
Finland (Finnish companies) is buying resources, involved in infrastructure projects, building factories, buying stuff they export. It’s just the same sort of business China does. China is just a much bigger player with a much more pronounced effect.
Read the sources I linked. There is both a quantitative and qualitative difference, and its driven by the fact that Finland deals with the Global South as an employer exploits an employee, and China deals with the Global South as a store selling to customers. Finnish people as a whole live similar to landlords, off the backs of others, while China lives off of its own labor and needs customers to sell to.
China also works as an employer, though they sometimes also bring their own workers for resource extraction which imo seems more exploitative tbh. Not sure China is doing imperialism when they are an employer if that’s what imperialism is.
For seemingly the dozenth time, I am asking you to read the sources. If you aren’t going to accept my explanations, then look at the sources.
Fundamentally, the manner in which China approaches trade is focused on multilateralism, not on relying on using an overseas workforce in order to export the largest misery and only keep the more privledged forms of labor domestically as Finland, and the rest of the West, does.
If you want to learn more about Imperialism specifically, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is an excellent work, and the underlying analysis of structures has continued to this day. Michael Hudson’s Super-Imperialism is US-focused, but continues that frame of analysis to the modern day.
I am looking at the sources but I am not seeing the exact difference. If a Chinese company and a Finnish company are both buying manufacturing, somehow one of them is imperialistic and the other isn’t. It’s just a very hard concept to understand. You’d think for the country at the other end and escpially on people level only the company that is paying the wages changes.
The problem is that you think the actions of China and Finland are the same in quantity and quality, hence your framing it as them “both buying manufacturing.”
I mean the situation I described is the same. A company buying manufacturing, exchanging money for labour and products, making use of the cheaper wages.
The situation you described is the same, but it isn’t an accurate picture of what’s going on on the ground. The outcomes are entirely different as well because of how different the involvement is. With Finland, the Global South is exploited and extracted from, with China, the Global South is developed. Finland wants to squeeze the Global South for all it has, while China wants to build up customers and make a profit along the way.
Here’s a video of Yanis Varoufakis talking about how dealing with China is different, here’s Vijay Prashad talking about how the way China deals with Africa is fundamentally different from Europe and the US, China regularly forgives billions in debt because the point is to build up customers, not debt trap, and more.
The terms are entirely different in the deals made with Finland vs China. Certainly you can see how higher interest rates, and requirements to sell off sovereignty of your resources may make one loan far more exploitative than a simple loan that may be forgiven, correct?