Communism is when capitalism

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

234 comments

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.
  
  Check the sources
  I didn't see any comparison of such contracts.
  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.
  
  Check the sources. The fact that you think they are both doing the same thing means you haven't read the sources legitimately. I provided many, so you can take your pick, but if you're going to continue to make false claims and refuse to engage with the sources I provided, then there's nowhere for this conversation to go.
  
  If there honestly are comparisons of contracts of Finnish companies and Chinese companies for outsourced manufacturing then I'm just not seeing it. What source(s) have it?
  
  Yanis talks about some of the differences, for the final time, check out the sources.
  
  You mean this source?
  
  Sadly seems like the video is gone now, since I last watched it. Nevertheless, the other sources offer more than enough evidence to the entirely different character of Western Aid vs Chinese Aid. The book Super-Imperialism is also useful for understanding how Western countries are Imperialist, though it says little about China as the focus is the US, and to a lesser extent, the EU.
  The short summary is that Western Loans require participating countries to give up sovereignty over their national resources and industry through directed clauses in loans, increasing dependence on Western Loans and underdevelopment in the long run. Chinese loans do not come with such directed clauses, and with Chinese involvement comes dramatic infrastructural improvements, generally increasing autonomy.
  When you boil it down to "they both trade," you equalize very different investment practices and erase the results.

234 comments