As far as I'm aware, China has been giving loans to various countries in Africa and building infrastructure in exchange for money and maybe some stuff like recognizing Taiwan as part of China. But why do people say China is imperialist for doing this? Is there truth to it or is it another strain of radlibs eating state department propaganda?
I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but how is it not?
If a government is enacting a policy with the intention of gaining influence in foreign countries, that would seem like imperialism to me.
Imperialism isn't just "when the government influences another country".
The basic features of imperialism Lenin identified in Imperialism:
Mutually beneficially trade deals or infrastructure investments are not imperialist. Doing things for other countries in order to gain support from them is just diplomacy.
What do you call it when a government is trying to increase its hegemony over other governments?
Hegemony is a loaded term. Trying to influence other governments is just trying to influence other governments. China is a relatively powerful country, but the underlying logic behind its support of African economies isn't imperialist due to the structure of their state and economy (i.e., not being controlled by a capitalist oligarchy). It's more similar in nature to the relationship between Cuba or the DPRK and post-colonial African governments, but takes the form of large infrastructure projects because China is actually capable of funding them. And obviously it's not purely altruistic, because China's still a developing country and still needs allies to support it in the struggle against American imperialism, etc., but that doesn't make the relationship exploitative.
China doesn't impose particular economic policies on the African countries they deal with, frequently forgives debts and offers interest-free loans, doesn't invade or sanction African countries, etc. Basically, they aren't doing any of the things colonial and neocolonial powers have done to subjugate African nations. They're just making mutually beneficial deals that both undermine predatory imperialist international financing institutions and drive the development of both China and Africa.
Check out this interview with a Zambian socialist presidential candidate where he talks about China's relationship with Africa: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKEq0fCggI
To me, imperialism is when one government tries to increase its own power and influence, usually by getting control over countries (be it outright or with regards to certain policies).
Ok, but that's literally all governments. Not even just every state - every polity has a stake in strengthening itself. That doesn't seem like a very useful definition.
I didn't word it very well initially. Namely, I updated the comment to include that another part of it getting control of other countries.
deleted by creator
I think so.
Now, I fully acknowledge that they aren't forcing anybody to join them (although its often a case of a government having to choose between BRI loans and worse IMF loans, so they have to do something).
This may not be the most accurate comparison, but I think it would be analogous to the Marshall Plan, in that something beneficial to governments is brought forth, but the recipient cedes hegemony to the lender.
deleted by creator
No it's not.
However, that is likely not the case when one government is a hegemon and the other is much weaker.
deleted by creator
Isn't that just "politics" though?
If a country was critically short on food and another country gave them food, no strings attached, it would still gain influence with the nation receiving aid.
I'd imagine that there are ways in which an imperialist country can help another country in one way, while demanding something in return that far exceeds the value of the amount of "help" that was offered. Things like tax exemptions for foreign nationals, low/zero interest loans directed to outside business interests, permission to use airspace for military/intelligence purposes, forcing the country in need to take loans with conditions that they cannot possibly hope to adhere to...
Who says that is the case here?
I think the latest headlines I've seen use the phrase "debt trap". Might start skimming some articles with those search terms.
I'm not a big enough geo political economics nerd to speak with any confidence. Most of what I've read is a bit of a mystery to me, so ya know, take a pound of salt with this comment.
But one headline framing that I've seen was that China was setting up these African nations with some kind of debt trap.
I've also seen headlines that frame it as, China is giving credit but doesn't seem to be using it to control those nations in a way that we'd expect the USA to do, the debit trap isn't a thing that China is doing.
The only, probably useless analogy, that I can think of is going to the bank and trying to get a loan.
There are loans where the bank will just give you some money with only the normal conditions you'd expect, there will be interest payments on top of the principal, you will forfeit your collateral if you default on the loan, etc.
But there are other loans, like Mortgages, where the bank will get to make way more conditions regulating specific actions you can take. For Mortgages, if you ever lose your home owners insurance for any reason, including because the insurance company fucked up, the bank can immediately send you a letter telling you that you've defaulted on your loan (this happened to me, the insurance company unfucked everything before the sheriff's kicked us out but it was still pretty fucking scary) and you've got "x" amount of days to pay up or lose your house to the bank. I think Agri loans probably fit this example too. Go in with a busniess plan asking for a few thousand dollars in start up money and you might be told no outright. Talk about buying a CAFO and contracting with Tyson and the bank will give you a several million dollar loan they know you aren't going to be able to pay back before filing for bankruptcy.
I would hardly call myself an expert on BRI. As I understand, the terms that get offered to governments are better than what they would get from the IMF.
In either case, I find it hard to believe that China is doing that and expecting nothing in return.
Quid pro quo is fine so long as the terms of what is being expected in return aren't outside what the less "powerful" nation is able and wanting to accept.
Like, lending a neighbor some cash and expecting the cash back at some point in the future as well as maybe being able to ask for help later with a better chance of being told "yes" versus lending cash to my neighbor on the condition that I get to roll around naked on top of their car.
Both scenarios, I ask/expect something in return. Only one of those scenarios do I do something "allegedly" weird and "allegedly" uncomfortable for the other party.
I would still say that if you are doing something increase your influence, it is doing just that.
Depends on what you mean by "influence".
Being a person that can be relied on by others to help them, increases your influence with those people you help. Proving yourself a valuable friend can increase your influence among the people you hang out with.
You can gain influence both through subterfuge/coercion or just by being a decent creature.
The USA could increase its influence by trying to have a good reputations with other nations, but usually can't keep the need for dick swinging in check long enough to do so. Sure, the PRC could have some nefarious scheme going on... or it could just being trying to work with other countries that could use the help.
My personal view is that they see an opportunity and went for it.
deleted by creator
I don't disagree that BRI policies benefit or have benefitted various countries.
All I'm saying is that China isn't likely doing this just out of the goodness of their heart and they have the goal of gaining influence.
deleted by creator
Okay I have a gut feeling that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart... if that's your only standard here
Do you really think that they expect nothing in return?
deleted by creator
If the argument is that receiver also benefitting makes something not imperialism, then by that standard, IMF loans would not be considered that, seeing that governments receive much-needed money, but at a great cost (while BRI loans would be more beneficial to them).
No and they don't even make that assertion. That's kind of my point.
why is that imperialism to you and not diplomacy? whats the difference to you?
Diplomacy is reaching out and improving or having good relations.
Imperialism is when you try to increase your power, often by gaining influence.
You really just need to spend some time reading and learning about imperialism, because you're incorrect about what that word means. Try reading Lenin's Imperialism to learn more about it. There's far more to imperialism than "trying to increase your power"
I agree with Lenin's description of imperialism. Essentially, finance capital is created in a country and expands to other places, where it becomes dominant and everything there is subservient to it.
However, I don't think its wrong to say that a government ceding its hegemony, in whole or part, would be an example of imperialism, independent of Lenin's description.
Do you think that "reaching out and improving or having good relations" isn't being done to build or utilize influence?
That seem more like imperialism.
But that was your definition of diplomacy?
No, you applied my definition to a specific function, one that I didn't bring up.
I guess we're miscommunicating here. My first comment, to clarify, was intended to ask, what do you think the goal of
"reaching out and improving or having good relations"
is for a state other than to gain or use influence with other states?
EDIT: Also, you did bring up the idea of states cultivating influence with each other (to gain power) as imperialism.
"Imperialism is when you try to increase your power, often by gaining influence."
I'm saying that to me the definition you gave for diplomacy and the one you gave for imperialism seem almost identical but one of them uses more negative sounding language.
I would say that diplomacy is when somebody wants to reach out to somebody else, for the goal of something like solving an issue that exists or forming an alliance. The two sides may not be equal ins stature, but the dominant side also isn't trying to gain power over the other.
Meanwhile, imperialism could be somebody providing something to somebody else, but with the goal of having them become subservient as a result.