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?
How does the situation end up with a difference in the case where the situation is the same? If you have some sort of contracts to compare China and Finland then that would be interesting to look at. I’d be surprised if Finnish companies, being typically much smaller, manage to get better deals than Chinese ones.
Check the sources, its evident you haven’t. Examples of differences are shown, and it isn’t about being “better or worse,” its because the purpose is different. China wants customers, Finland wants cheap labor.
isn’t about being “better or worse,” its because the purpose is different. China wants customers, Finland wants cheap labor.
I was just saying that both are the same they’re both as good or bad. When both are buying manufacturing then both are wanting cheap labour. Not much other reason to oursource manufacturing. Whether you think such outsourcing is bad as a rule is up to you.
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?
How does the situation end up with a difference in the case where the situation is the same? If you have some sort of contracts to compare China and Finland then that would be interesting to look at. I’d be surprised if Finnish companies, being typically much smaller, manage to get better deals than Chinese ones.
Check the sources, its evident you haven’t. Examples of differences are shown, and it isn’t about being “better or worse,” its because the purpose is different. China wants customers, Finland wants cheap labor.
Check the sources.
I didn’t see any comparison of such contracts.
I was just saying that both are the same they’re both as good or bad. When both are buying manufacturing then both are wanting cheap labour. Not much other reason to oursource manufacturing. Whether you think such outsourcing is bad as a rule is up to you.