china doesnt need to invade another country to be all authoritarian over them. For one they have their own population to do that with. And secondly, they seem to be focusing much more on getting other countries to hold chinese debt, presumably in an effort to make them default such that they can cut really sleazy deals with them. Also china allies with north korea and russia, they have no need to directly invade a nation.
Also the proxy war in europe isn’t a bad thing, that’s a good thing, it’s effectively a proxy war between europe, the US, and russia. Who broke their own treaty with ukraine. And is also doing warcrimes all over ukraine, unlike ukraine.
And secondly, they seem to be focusing much more on getting other countries to hold chinese debt, presumably in an effort to make them default such that they can cut really sleazy deals with them.
Projection. Westerners hold the vast majority of the debt of developing countries, which they leverage to gain control of their domestic policies and enact exploitative policies that extract as much wealth as possible while the countries themselves are unable to develop beyond being resource colonies. China frequently forgives the debts of developing countries and invests in actual infrastructure and development without making domestic policy demands.
Behaving that way is in line with China’s self-interest, and a major reason why it’s growing in global influence. They have to offer better deals in order to compete with the established monopoly of Western investment. The West is still operating in an arrogant and chauvinistic way, when countries don’t comply with their demands, they either bomb them to smithereens (Libya) or they seize whatever assets are in their banks (Venezuela). While this may intimidate some countries into falling in line, it also pushes others right over to dealing with China, because they don’t do things like that.
Projection. Westerners hold the vast majority of the debt of developing countries, which they leverage to gain control of their domestic policies and enact exploitative policies that extract as much wealth as possible while the countries themselves are unable to develop beyond being resource colonies. China frequently forgives the debts of developing countries and invests in actual infrastructure and development without making domestic policy demands.
Regardless, china does still engage in predatory behaviors, especially with their military, they engage in super aggressive forms of power projection over the parts of the sea they consider “theirs” that other states don’t agree with. As well as the numerous examples of chinese aircraft in international airspace causing problems.
even ignoring these two things, i wouldn’t be surprised if this was a short term loss, long term gain expectation, not dissimilar from theories of venture capital funding.
They do occasional saber-rattling in their part of the world. The US does saber-rattling all over the world and is continuously engaged in much more than that, invasions, bombing campaigns, etc. The US spends more on the military than the next 9 countries combined and that’s before taking into account foreign aid in the form of stuff like giving bombs to Israel. There is absolutely no comparison between the two.
even ignoring these two things, i wouldn’t be surprised if this was a short term loss, long term gain expectation, not dissimilar from theories of venture capital funding.
Uh, yeah, that’s exactly what the deals are about. It’s an investment and they hope that the countries will develop and pay them back and they’ll get a return. Helping countries develop and expanding their economic bloc is how they intend to grow and continue developing, and it’s been working quite well for them, with more and more countries falling into their sphere of influence, or triangulating between the two instead of dealing with the West exclusively (especially middle-income countries, that don’t get a lot of attention in the media). You say it as if it’s a bad thing, but that sort of trade and investment is mutually beneficial and the most practical and proven pathway towards eliminating poverty.
China is on track to eclipse the US simply by winning the peace, while the US burns itself out on constant wars and conflicts to fuel the military-industrial complex. Tbh my biggest concern is that the US will see that and decide that the only way to maintain hegemony is to start WWIII, because it’s invested so much into the military that that’s increasingly the only area where it has an advantage.
China is ruled by a communist (far LEFT ideology) party doing socialist (LEFT) politics whereas fascism is a far RIGHT wing ideology, so they’re basically opposite ideologies.
Nazism (Germany) fascism (Italy) were far right wing ideologies, they basically killed communists (left ideology) for fun
There’re right authoritarian regimes and left authoritarian regimes. There also are fake/hidden “democracies” where their only two political parties are both of them controlled by the SAME entity in the background
ok so, i think people confuse the idea of communism, with the concept of lefty communism. There are two types of communism. True blue communism, early soviet union for example. And then what i like to refer to as “pseudo communism” later soviet union, and most other communist states, including china. Most people advocate for a more “true blue communism” which is a different thing.
secondly, most people like to compare between capitalism, and communism, with socialism being somewhere in the middle, where as i think it’s much more accurate to summarize it separately. You have capitalism which is a big player, socialism (communism doesnt count), and then you have authoritarianism. Generally, as a state you exist somewhere in this triangle of economic ideals. You either have a relatively free economy, under capitalism, a collectively owned economy under socialism, and then a centrally owned and planned economy under authoritarianism.
The problem here is that china is more of an authoritarian capitalist state, than it is communist. It doesn’t subscribe to any of the main tenant of communism as is blatantly evidenced by their society. However it does have more authoritarian polices, as evidenced socially and economically.
German nazism was actually done under the socialist party, the funny left leaning one. Fascism itself is apolitical, it doesn’t care what side of the spectrum you’re on, for example stalin might be considering a left leaning fascist. Generally fascism uphold right wing ideals as they tend to be the most simplistic, but that’s more of a secondary force.
china doesnt need to invade another country to be all authoritarian over them. For one they have their own population to do that with. And secondly, they seem to be focusing much more on getting other countries to hold chinese debt, presumably in an effort to make them default such that they can cut really sleazy deals with them. Also china allies with north korea and russia, they have no need to directly invade a nation.
Also the proxy war in europe isn’t a bad thing, that’s a good thing, it’s effectively a proxy war between europe, the US, and russia. Who broke their own treaty with ukraine. And is also doing warcrimes all over ukraine, unlike ukraine.
Projection. Westerners hold the vast majority of the debt of developing countries, which they leverage to gain control of their domestic policies and enact exploitative policies that extract as much wealth as possible while the countries themselves are unable to develop beyond being resource colonies. China frequently forgives the debts of developing countries and invests in actual infrastructure and development without making domestic policy demands.
Behaving that way is in line with China’s self-interest, and a major reason why it’s growing in global influence. They have to offer better deals in order to compete with the established monopoly of Western investment. The West is still operating in an arrogant and chauvinistic way, when countries don’t comply with their demands, they either bomb them to smithereens (Libya) or they seize whatever assets are in their banks (Venezuela). While this may intimidate some countries into falling in line, it also pushes others right over to dealing with China, because they don’t do things like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-trap_diplomacy#Domestic_Chinese_experience on some quick preliminary reading it seems like this is generally backed up though time will tell.
Regardless, china does still engage in predatory behaviors, especially with their military, they engage in super aggressive forms of power projection over the parts of the sea they consider “theirs” that other states don’t agree with. As well as the numerous examples of chinese aircraft in international airspace causing problems.
even ignoring these two things, i wouldn’t be surprised if this was a short term loss, long term gain expectation, not dissimilar from theories of venture capital funding.
They do occasional saber-rattling in their part of the world. The US does saber-rattling all over the world and is continuously engaged in much more than that, invasions, bombing campaigns, etc. The US spends more on the military than the next 9 countries combined and that’s before taking into account foreign aid in the form of stuff like giving bombs to Israel. There is absolutely no comparison between the two.
Uh, yeah, that’s exactly what the deals are about. It’s an investment and they hope that the countries will develop and pay them back and they’ll get a return. Helping countries develop and expanding their economic bloc is how they intend to grow and continue developing, and it’s been working quite well for them, with more and more countries falling into their sphere of influence, or triangulating between the two instead of dealing with the West exclusively (especially middle-income countries, that don’t get a lot of attention in the media). You say it as if it’s a bad thing, but that sort of trade and investment is mutually beneficial and the most practical and proven pathway towards eliminating poverty.
China is on track to eclipse the US simply by winning the peace, while the US burns itself out on constant wars and conflicts to fuel the military-industrial complex. Tbh my biggest concern is that the US will see that and decide that the only way to maintain hegemony is to start WWIII, because it’s invested so much into the military that that’s increasingly the only area where it has an advantage.
China is ruled by a communist (far LEFT ideology) party doing socialist (LEFT) politics whereas fascism is a far RIGHT wing ideology, so they’re basically opposite ideologies.
Nazism (Germany) fascism (Italy) were far right wing ideologies, they basically killed communists (left ideology) for fun
There’re right authoritarian regimes and left authoritarian regimes. There also are fake/hidden “democracies” where their only two political parties are both of them controlled by the SAME entity in the background
ok so, i think people confuse the idea of communism, with the concept of lefty communism. There are two types of communism. True blue communism, early soviet union for example. And then what i like to refer to as “pseudo communism” later soviet union, and most other communist states, including china. Most people advocate for a more “true blue communism” which is a different thing.
secondly, most people like to compare between capitalism, and communism, with socialism being somewhere in the middle, where as i think it’s much more accurate to summarize it separately. You have capitalism which is a big player, socialism (communism doesnt count), and then you have authoritarianism. Generally, as a state you exist somewhere in this triangle of economic ideals. You either have a relatively free economy, under capitalism, a collectively owned economy under socialism, and then a centrally owned and planned economy under authoritarianism.
The problem here is that china is more of an authoritarian capitalist state, than it is communist. It doesn’t subscribe to any of the main tenant of communism as is blatantly evidenced by their society. However it does have more authoritarian polices, as evidenced socially and economically.
German nazism was actually done under the socialist party, the funny left leaning one. Fascism itself is apolitical, it doesn’t care what side of the spectrum you’re on, for example stalin might be considering a left leaning fascist. Generally fascism uphold right wing ideals as they tend to be the most simplistic, but that’s more of a secondary force.