Wealth, success, and technological advancement are all imperialist.
And that’s good when a predominantly white western-aligned nation is doing it, because imperialism brings Liberty, Whiskey, AND Sexy. But it is extremely bad when a predominantly East Asian, Middle Eastern, African, or American Native nation is doing it, because… well… let me just bust out a copy of Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” to explain… just give me a moment…
But you can’t just be outside the NATO block and do free trade. That’s going to give people the impression that the US/EU metropoles aren’t the center of the financial universe. Also, it makes sanctioning countries into insolvency and starving the populations by embargoing their agricultural trade damned near impossible.
If you’re doing trade in a way that inhibits US control over the globe, it’s super imperialist and must be stopped at all costs.
You think so? Trade can very much be imperialistic. Particularly if you use it in certain ways. Were the Dutch not imperialistic when they spread their tentacles all over the east? The british?
(Cowbee defending the east India company was not on my bingo card today)
I didn’t defend the East India Company in any way, this is supremely dishonest. I said what China is doing is completely different from the Dutch and British, who super-exploited the global south for super profits (and still do).
There’s a lot of heavy lifting the phrase “particularly if you use it in certain ways” is doing for you. Can you connect how the Dutch and British super-exploited and underdeveloped the global south to China’s present trade with other global south countries, or is the fact that China is a rising economy itself evidence of imperialism in your view?
Edit: I didn’t defend the East India Company in any way, this is intensely dishonest.
Hey hey, look at all those client nations endorsing investment! Do we have any imperialism-debunking from Mongolia? Tibet? Vietnam or other border states?
The assumption that you seem to be using is that imperialism happens far away, that empire is non-contiguous.
Because they didn’t use trade to facilitate imperialism, they used military force to establish a relationship of brutal imperial domination which they then leveraged into extortionate trade “deals”. The imperialist war happens first, then comes the imperialist “trade” built on top of it. Trade cannot be imperialist without the threat of military force, and imperialism is never, ever seperate from that. By the same token, trade without coercion cannot be imperialist. The mafia doesn’t use their perfectly legitimate businesses to start doing crimes, the crimes are what got them the perfectly legitimate businesses. Furthermore, somebody else actually running a legitimate business does not then make that person a mobster
“Trade” is such a vague term that says nothing about the situation the exchange is taking place in, when “looting, mass murder, trafficking and extortion” are all better descriptors for the kind of “trade” the Dutch and other Europeans visited on the world, which bears no resemblance to China’s way of dealing with other countries.
What gives you that idea? Trade is not imperialist.
Wealth, success, and technological advancement are all imperialist.
And that’s good when a predominantly white western-aligned nation is doing it, because imperialism brings Liberty, Whiskey, AND Sexy. But it is extremely bad when a predominantly East Asian, Middle Eastern, African, or American Native nation is doing it, because… well… let me just bust out a copy of Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” to explain… just give me a moment…
But you can’t just be outside the NATO block and do free trade. That’s going to give people the impression that the US/EU metropoles aren’t the center of the financial universe. Also, it makes sanctioning countries into insolvency and starving the populations by embargoing their agricultural trade damned near impossible.
If you’re doing trade in a way that inhibits US control over the globe, it’s super imperialist and must be stopped at all costs.
Please use an /s for sarcasm in the future because it helps ppl with different mental or english language issues.
You think so? Trade can very much be imperialistic. Particularly if you use it in certain ways. Were the Dutch not imperialistic when they spread their tentacles all over the east? The british?
(Cowbee defending the east India company was not on my bingo card today)
I didn’t defend the East India Company in any way, this is supremely dishonest. I said what China is doing is completely different from the Dutch and British, who super-exploited the global south for super profits (and still do).
There’s a lot of heavy lifting the phrase “particularly if you use it in certain ways” is doing for you. Can you connect how the Dutch and British super-exploited and underdeveloped the global south to China’s present trade with other global south countries, or is the fact that China is a rising economy itself evidence of imperialism in your view?
Edit: I didn’t defend the East India Company in any way, this is intensely dishonest.
Under certain circumstances it can be, particularly if it’s an imperial core nation (US, UK, EU, AUS, Canada), trading with a poorer nation. It is not the case with trade from most global south nations, including China.
Is China Imperialist?
Hey hey, look at all those client nations endorsing investment! Do we have any imperialism-debunking from Mongolia? Tibet? Vietnam or other border states?
The assumption that you seem to be using is that imperialism happens far away, that empire is non-contiguous.
God i wish this person were still here to tell me what they think happened in Tibet
That’s like saying baking a pie for a neighbor is the same as feeding your slaves
Saying the Dutch used trade to spread imperialism is?
Because they didn’t use trade to facilitate imperialism, they used military force to establish a relationship of brutal imperial domination which they then leveraged into extortionate trade “deals”. The imperialist war happens first, then comes the imperialist “trade” built on top of it. Trade cannot be imperialist without the threat of military force, and imperialism is never, ever seperate from that. By the same token, trade without coercion cannot be imperialist. The mafia doesn’t use their perfectly legitimate businesses to start doing crimes, the crimes are what got them the perfectly legitimate businesses. Furthermore, somebody else actually running a legitimate business does not then make that person a mobster
“Trade” is such a vague term that says nothing about the situation the exchange is taking place in, when “looting, mass murder, trafficking and extortion” are all better descriptors for the kind of “trade” the Dutch and other Europeans visited on the world, which bears no resemblance to China’s way of dealing with other countries.
Seeing all these .ml accounts arguing that trade cannot be imperialistic is amazing. And here I thought that’s what capitalism was for.
The argument isn’t that trade cannot be imperialist, the argument is that trade is not always imperialist. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
Removed by mod
Deeply anti-materialist and racist.