China acts on the global market just as another player. It doesn’t matter a thing to the other country what ideology the trade partner claims to cherish, it’s the actions that matter.
It feels like you glossed over that I just said trade isn’t Capitalism. Your point relied on “there being no ethical consumption under Capitalism,” but that original analysis has nothing to do with the ideology of those producing goods, nor with trade. Trade is a mechanism employed by both Capitalist and Socialist systems, and isn’t inherently exploitative.
My entire point was that if the actions are the same (and they are) then it doesn’t matter one bit what the claimed ideology behind it is. You are the one worried about defining it through the ideology, for a fairly obvious reason. I’m just concerned about what the real interactions are.
They are buying resources, their companies are operating there selling their products, extracting resources, having manufacturing, they’re importing their products to those countries. Those are the same.
No, they are not at all the same, and I explained why already. To put it another way, the average Chinese person lives off of far more Chinese labor, while the average person in the West lives off of far more Global South labor.
China builds up countries it deals with, the West keeps them underdeveloped and over-exploited. I already showed how that is, so I will not copy and paste what I already did.
Somehow China doing the exact same business is mutually beneficial trade to uplift them both and Finland doing that business is imperialistic exploitation. Come on now friend.
China acts on the global market just as another player. It doesn’t matter a thing to the other country what ideology the trade partner claims to cherish, it’s the actions that matter.
It feels like you glossed over that I just said trade isn’t Capitalism. Your point relied on “there being no ethical consumption under Capitalism,” but that original analysis has nothing to do with the ideology of those producing goods, nor with trade. Trade is a mechanism employed by both Capitalist and Socialist systems, and isn’t inherently exploitative.
My entire point was that if the actions are the same (and they are) then it doesn’t matter one bit what the claimed ideology behind it is. You are the one worried about defining it through the ideology, for a fairly obvious reason. I’m just concerned about what the real interactions are.
The actions aren’t the same, though, and I explained and elaborated on why. You never engaged with it, but glossed over it.
They are buying resources, their companies are operating there selling their products, extracting resources, having manufacturing, they’re importing their products to those countries. Those are the same.
No, they are not at all the same, and I explained why already. To put it another way, the average Chinese person lives off of far more Chinese labor, while the average person in the West lives off of far more Global South labor.
And what’s exactly the difference for the other country?
China builds up countries it deals with, the West keeps them underdeveloped and over-exploited. I already showed how that is, so I will not copy and paste what I already did.
Somehow China doing the exact same business is mutually beneficial trade to uplift them both and Finland doing that business is imperialistic exploitation. Come on now friend.