I have to ask this before I can answer that question: Is reformism acceptable under socialism, when it is otherwise looked down upon?
I’d like to focus on one point at a time.
I didn’t say socialist countries haven’t been under siege, I said there are ones that haven’t been in a long time. When was China last under siege? There’s always drama between it and US sure but the US depends on China too and it’s not like Cuba where it’s being obliterated because of the US.
Without being significantly attacked by imperialism in a long time, and with clearly being an economic superpower, what is China’s excuse for not performing on the same level as Scandinavian countries?
Granted China engages in imperialism itself— and I hope you can recognize that and not disregard imperialism when it occurs under socialist countries/China.
Reforms aren’t a problem in capitalism or socialism by themselves, the issue arises when those with socialism as a goal believe you can establish socialism via reform, without the conquest of political power. Ie, the problem of reformism or revolution. The capitalist state will always work in the interests of capitalists.
The economic basis of socialism is in large-scale industry, as this is best suited for collective planning. In this way, capitalism aligns the small manufacturers and stitches together all of the disconnected forms of old production into a new system. It socializes production while keeping profits privatized.
The political basis of socialism is in a dictatorship of the proletariat, a worker state. Capitalism will never create a worker state by itself, its contradictions will heighten and this increases the revolutionary potential until people overthrow it. The belief that capitalism can smoothly change into socialism is where social democracy and reformism comes from, but this is a dead-end. Revolution is necessary.
The necessary first step in the establishment of socialism is the conquest of political power, destroying the old capitalist state, and then establishing a worker state. With this, the existing large industry can be immediately or near-immediately folded into the public sector, and heavily state-managed markets can help fill in the gaps (as we can see in China and Vietnam quite well today, and the NEP in the USSR).
Both economy and politics are intertwined, forming the base and the superstructure. Without siezing the state and the commanding heights of industry, however, any revolution can be ruthlessly overturned, such as in Chile with Allende.
As for China, it’s still at siege, and threatened by imperialism. China is a developing country, much of it is underdeveloped in rural areas. It’s easy to look at the achievements of China and assume they must be a developed country, but in fact they still have a great ways to go. Further, China is not imperialist, while Scandinavian countries are.
China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
Perhaps most obvious is the fact that trade partnerships with China have resulted in dramatic development for the global south, while imperialist countries have underdeveloped countries in the global south. The change in the trajectory of the global south towards rapid improvements was brought about by anti-colonial movements and beneficial partnerships with other developing countries like China, resulting in a multipolar world. China is absolutely not imperialist, this is mainstream socialist consensus.
You say that the global south is accelerating in its development because of China, can you give me data/graphs for this claim?
Land-grabbing and seizing other resources unethically also constitutes imperialism, though. China keeps trying to bully the countries that have broken off from China (i.e. Taiwan and Hong Kong). I hope you can recognize that without blind support for China and asserting the secession of some of its parts was/is “invalid” (or “never happened”).
There’s also the sea-grabbing china has been doing in the sea below it where it’s got conflicts w the phillipines, Malaysia/Indonesia and other countries in the area where from what I last remember china was conducting unauthorized operations in the area despite nobody in the region recognizing the area as China’s— though this may be off.
you say china isn’t imperialist by “socialist consensus” but that’s not really relevant here; of course supporters of XYZ party/ideology aren’t going to criticize a member. I am not a socialist, outside of socialism it seems pretty clearly to be imperialist.
Secondly, however, “land-grabbing” isn’t inherently imperialism. For example, Hong Kong was a British colony stolen from China and recently given back, ans the majority of Hong Kongers are happy with that (something fans of the western-backed rioters neglect to say). The majority of people in Taiwan want neither independence nor to be folded more fully into the PRC, they want the status quo, and the CPC is willing to wait it out even though the Kuomintang fled there and massacred local resistance in the White Terror after they lost the Chinese Civil War.
Border disputes are not inherently imperialism either. Some nations recognized the ROC as the legitimate government of China for a time, and it claimed different areas, which caused the modern border nonsense.
All in all, I gave a short synopsis of imperialism and a link to a good article explaining it so that we could hopefully be on the same page. If you mean to say that any and all acquisition of land that was not immediately your territory prior to doing so is “imperialism,” then I’m sorry but I don’t agree that this is bad in all cases. Imperialism is an epoch of international monopoly finance capitalism, it’s a specific stage in capitalist development at a world scale, and the imperialist countries are generally western countries and their vassals.
If China can respect Taiwan’s desire to maintain the status quo I have no issue with that. Its been on the news that China has been using the Iran war as cover, partly to prepare for an attack on Taiwan with the ships being equipped with military missiles and the sort. I haven’t looked into that claim, however.
If you’re saying all western countries play into imperialism by means of capitalism, then there’s two things to say here:
1- China hasn’t fully transitioned to complete communism yet, even if it is transitioning over time. Meaning China also engages in capitalism. This makes china involved in the same process of imperialism, even if to a smaller extent. Do you recognize that?
2- In the socialist framework, Communism is seen as the natural end consequence, and countries will naturally transition from capitalism to communism. By that reasoning, according to socialists, isn’t it “only a matter of time” before the west also communizes? So why demonize the west? Are the west simply imperialistic because they are inherently “evil” like that, or does historical analysis on the etiology of current conditions / diamat not apply when analyzing the west?
If China can respect Taiwan’s desire to maintain the status quo I have no issue with that. Its been on the news that China has been using the Iran war as cover, partly to prepare for an attack on Taiwan with the ships being equipped with military missiles and the sort. I haven’t looked into that claim, however.
If you’re saying all western countries play into imperialism by means of capitalism, then there’s two things to say here: 1- China hasn’t fully transitioned to complete communism yet, even if it is transitioning over time. Meaning China also engages in capitalism. This makes china involved in the same process of imperialism, even if to a smaller extent. Do you recognize that?
China has elements of capitalism, but has a socialist economy and a socialist state. Western countries have capitalist states and capitalist economies. Capitalism itself is not imperialism, imperialism is a stage in capitalist development. Global south countries are largely capitalist, and yet are on the plundered end of imperialism as a global system. China is a developing, socialist country that is not under the control of a financial oligarchy nor driven by the profit motive as the primary aspect driving development.
2- In the socialist framework, Communism is seen as the natural end consequence, and countries will naturally transition from capitalism to communism. By that reasoning, according to socialists, isn’t it “only a matter of time” before the west also communizes? So why demonize the west? Are the west simply imperialistic because they are inherently “evil” like that, or does historical analysis on the etiology of current conditions / diamat not apply when analyzing the west?
Socialism does not develop from capitalism, capitalism prepares the conditions for transition to socialism. Capitalism still has to be overthrown, and the biggest obstacle to revolution both in the imperial core and in the imperialized countries is imperialism. Imperialism is what bribes the working classes in the core into siding with capitalism over the global south, and imperialism is what keeps global south countries underdeveloped and at risk of coups, sanctions, and genocide by the west if they fight back.
The west is not imperialist because they are evil. The west is imperialist because they developed that way. Capitalism was first developed in Britain, which then progressed to the underdevelopment of African countries via trading more advanced British goods for slaves. This kickstarted colonization of the Americas and Africa, where Europe leveraged its developmental head start to completely suck Africa dry of labor and resources to continue widening the development gap.
This transitioned from full colonialism to imperialism, as bank and industrial capital ballooned in size and merged to form financial capital, and markets became over saturated domestically and needed to expand. This became the basis of exporting capital, the era of imperialism, and after colonialism was “ended” came the more subtle neocolonialism. The US Empire rose and overtook Europe as the world hegemony following World War II, as Europe was forced to rebuild while the US profited immensely.
China is not a part of that in any capacity. It is facilitating trade along more equal lines, and this is why China is the country of choice for the global south to turn to as a partner. The super profits from imperialism and neocolonialism are drying up in the west, which is why there has been a wave of fascism. China is dominated by state capital, in the hands of a working class state, not finance capital by a capitalist state. See State Capital vs. Finance Capital: Why China is not – and Cannot Become – an Imperial Hegemon.
You have continuously either ignored resources I have provided or seemingly deliberately ignored key points to try to form a strawman of my views. It’s a repeated behavior of yours.
Which countries, specifically, has Scandinavia conducted an imperialistic campaign over? Please specify the countries. So far you have kept it nebulous.
or is it exclusively through this indirect mechanism of end-stage-capitalism imperialism that it occurs just generally/globally?
Imperialism is a stage in capitalism, not an individual action, just like there’s no such thing as a single company in a vacuum, as the existence of companies implies capital markets, labor markets, and commodity markets all in general the company is operating within. Imperialism is a material process where the imperial core exports capital to the global south, taking advantage of development gaps and hard/soft power to super-exploit them for super-profits.
In 2008, Norwegian communications multinational, Telenor — partly owned by the state — was exposed for partnering with a Bangladeshi supplier that employed child labour in horrendous conditions.
A report revealed that the children were made to handle chemical substances without protection and one worker died after falling into a pool of acid. The plant also ruined the crops of farmers in the surrounding area with the waste it produced.
Like other Western multinationals that deliberately go to the developing world looking to save money on labour and operating costs, the company washed its hands of the accusations — denying knowledge about its partner’s inhumane practices.
Similarly, Norwegian oil and gas company Statoil, also partly owned by the state, has been involved in multiple corruption cases around the world — especially in underdeveloped countries — where they have bribed state companies and government officials to obtain licenses for extraction.
Their involvement is not only limited to these aggressive economic practices, Scandinavian nations are also deeply involved in the West’s military exploits. Norway dropped 588 bombs on Libya, but is scarcely mentioned as being part of these imperialist operations. Statoil has since started joint extractions operations worth millions in the ruined country.
Sweden’s foreign policy record is no better. Technology firms like Saab, BAE Systems and Bofors compete with the US and Israel in their development of a large variety of weapons that are sold to 55 countries around the world in deals worth billions. It seems that Sweden, like its Norwegian neighbour, actively participates in denying human rights to millions across the globe, especially in underdeveloped nations.
The Swedish clothing giant H&M can sell affordable products in rich nations and make huge profits only because it exploits and underpays workers in impoverished nations such as Bangladesh.
As John Smith points out in his book Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century, only €0.95 of the final sale price of an H&M T-shirt remains in Bangladesh to cover the cost of the factory, the workers, the suppliers and the government. The remaining €3.54 goes for taxes and transportation in the market country, with the bulk going to the retailer.
In other words, Western nations capture most of the profit, although it is the poor workers and nations that have put in most of the labour and resources.
The Danish-British firm G4S is the world’s largest security company and is known for its long list of controversies. It has supplied services to Israeli prisons and checkpoints, and been accused of mistreatment of immigrants in detention centres. It has also played a huge role in protecting Western imperialist interests, such as oil refineries and the territory around the Dakota Access pipeline on Native American land in the US.
However, since Britain is known as the most aggressive of the two nations, the Danish component is frequently swept under the rug, despite the fact they were the founders and developers of the company.
It was for these reasons that I linked resources on what imperialism actually is, and why capitalism necessarily evolves into it. Imperialism is also why socialist revolution has largely happened in exploited countries, rather than more developed ones as initially predicted by Marx. Capitalism may pave the way for socialism, but not in an even manner like social democrats would have you believe.
I have to ask this before I can answer that question: Is reformism acceptable under socialism, when it is otherwise looked down upon?
I’d like to focus on one point at a time.
I didn’t say socialist countries haven’t been under siege, I said there are ones that haven’t been in a long time. When was China last under siege? There’s always drama between it and US sure but the US depends on China too and it’s not like Cuba where it’s being obliterated because of the US.
Without being significantly attacked by imperialism in a long time, and with clearly being an economic superpower, what is China’s excuse for not performing on the same level as Scandinavian countries?
Granted China engages in imperialism itself— and I hope you can recognize that and not disregard imperialism when it occurs under socialist countries/China.
Reforms aren’t a problem in capitalism or socialism by themselves, the issue arises when those with socialism as a goal believe you can establish socialism via reform, without the conquest of political power. Ie, the problem of reformism or revolution. The capitalist state will always work in the interests of capitalists.
The economic basis of socialism is in large-scale industry, as this is best suited for collective planning. In this way, capitalism aligns the small manufacturers and stitches together all of the disconnected forms of old production into a new system. It socializes production while keeping profits privatized.
The political basis of socialism is in a dictatorship of the proletariat, a worker state. Capitalism will never create a worker state by itself, its contradictions will heighten and this increases the revolutionary potential until people overthrow it. The belief that capitalism can smoothly change into socialism is where social democracy and reformism comes from, but this is a dead-end. Revolution is necessary.
The necessary first step in the establishment of socialism is the conquest of political power, destroying the old capitalist state, and then establishing a worker state. With this, the existing large industry can be immediately or near-immediately folded into the public sector, and heavily state-managed markets can help fill in the gaps (as we can see in China and Vietnam quite well today, and the NEP in the USSR).
Both economy and politics are intertwined, forming the base and the superstructure. Without siezing the state and the commanding heights of industry, however, any revolution can be ruthlessly overturned, such as in Chile with Allende.
As for China, it’s still at siege, and threatened by imperialism. China is a developing country, much of it is underdeveloped in rural areas. It’s easy to look at the achievements of China and assume they must be a developed country, but in fact they still have a great ways to go. Further, China is not imperialist, while Scandinavian countries are.
China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
Perhaps most obvious is the fact that trade partnerships with China have resulted in dramatic development for the global south, while imperialist countries have underdeveloped countries in the global south. The change in the trajectory of the global south towards rapid improvements was brought about by anti-colonial movements and beneficial partnerships with other developing countries like China, resulting in a multipolar world. China is absolutely not imperialist, this is mainstream socialist consensus.
You say that the global south is accelerating in its development because of China, can you give me data/graphs for this claim?
Land-grabbing and seizing other resources unethically also constitutes imperialism, though. China keeps trying to bully the countries that have broken off from China (i.e. Taiwan and Hong Kong). I hope you can recognize that without blind support for China and asserting the secession of some of its parts was/is “invalid” (or “never happened”).
There’s also the sea-grabbing china has been doing in the sea below it where it’s got conflicts w the phillipines, Malaysia/Indonesia and other countries in the area where from what I last remember china was conducting unauthorized operations in the area despite nobody in the region recognizing the area as China’s— though this may be off.
you say china isn’t imperialist by “socialist consensus” but that’s not really relevant here; of course supporters of XYZ party/ideology aren’t going to criticize a member. I am not a socialist, outside of socialism it seems pretty clearly to be imperialist.
For starters, BRI has lifted 40 million people out of poverty, has built thousands of infrastructure projects, and increased billions in bilateral trade. Further, I didn’t say the global south developing was soley because of China, but also due to anti-colonial movements and anti-imperialist movements, as well as partnerships among the global south that do not necessarily include China, I just said that China is playing a positive role in undermining imperialism.
Secondly, however, “land-grabbing” isn’t inherently imperialism. For example, Hong Kong was a British colony stolen from China and recently given back, ans the majority of Hong Kongers are happy with that (something fans of the western-backed rioters neglect to say). The majority of people in Taiwan want neither independence nor to be folded more fully into the PRC, they want the status quo, and the CPC is willing to wait it out even though the Kuomintang fled there and massacred local resistance in the White Terror after they lost the Chinese Civil War.
Border disputes are not inherently imperialism either. Some nations recognized the ROC as the legitimate government of China for a time, and it claimed different areas, which caused the modern border nonsense.
All in all, I gave a short synopsis of imperialism and a link to a good article explaining it so that we could hopefully be on the same page. If you mean to say that any and all acquisition of land that was not immediately your territory prior to doing so is “imperialism,” then I’m sorry but I don’t agree that this is bad in all cases. Imperialism is an epoch of international monopoly finance capitalism, it’s a specific stage in capitalist development at a world scale, and the imperialist countries are generally western countries and their vassals.
If China can respect Taiwan’s desire to maintain the status quo I have no issue with that. Its been on the news that China has been using the Iran war as cover, partly to prepare for an attack on Taiwan with the ships being equipped with military missiles and the sort. I haven’t looked into that claim, however.
If you’re saying all western countries play into imperialism by means of capitalism, then there’s two things to say here: 1- China hasn’t fully transitioned to complete communism yet, even if it is transitioning over time. Meaning China also engages in capitalism. This makes china involved in the same process of imperialism, even if to a smaller extent. Do you recognize that?
2- In the socialist framework, Communism is seen as the natural end consequence, and countries will naturally transition from capitalism to communism. By that reasoning, according to socialists, isn’t it “only a matter of time” before the west also communizes? So why demonize the west? Are the west simply imperialistic because they are inherently “evil” like that, or does historical analysis on the etiology of current conditions / diamat not apply when analyzing the west?
Correct, it has been on the news because this is what western media does. In reality, Kuomintang leaders are meeting with Xi Jinping to avoid the US turning Taiwan into Ukraine 2.
China has elements of capitalism, but has a socialist economy and a socialist state. Western countries have capitalist states and capitalist economies. Capitalism itself is not imperialism, imperialism is a stage in capitalist development. Global south countries are largely capitalist, and yet are on the plundered end of imperialism as a global system. China is a developing, socialist country that is not under the control of a financial oligarchy nor driven by the profit motive as the primary aspect driving development.
Socialism does not develop from capitalism, capitalism prepares the conditions for transition to socialism. Capitalism still has to be overthrown, and the biggest obstacle to revolution both in the imperial core and in the imperialized countries is imperialism. Imperialism is what bribes the working classes in the core into siding with capitalism over the global south, and imperialism is what keeps global south countries underdeveloped and at risk of coups, sanctions, and genocide by the west if they fight back.
The west is not imperialist because they are evil. The west is imperialist because they developed that way. Capitalism was first developed in Britain, which then progressed to the underdevelopment of African countries via trading more advanced British goods for slaves. This kickstarted colonization of the Americas and Africa, where Europe leveraged its developmental head start to completely suck Africa dry of labor and resources to continue widening the development gap.
This transitioned from full colonialism to imperialism, as bank and industrial capital ballooned in size and merged to form financial capital, and markets became over saturated domestically and needed to expand. This became the basis of exporting capital, the era of imperialism, and after colonialism was “ended” came the more subtle neocolonialism. The US Empire rose and overtook Europe as the world hegemony following World War II, as Europe was forced to rebuild while the US profited immensely.
China is not a part of that in any capacity. It is facilitating trade along more equal lines, and this is why China is the country of choice for the global south to turn to as a partner. The super profits from imperialism and neocolonialism are drying up in the west, which is why there has been a wave of fascism. China is dominated by state capital, in the hands of a working class state, not finance capital by a capitalist state. See State Capital vs. Finance Capital: Why China is not – and Cannot Become – an Imperial Hegemon.
You have continuously either ignored resources I have provided or seemingly deliberately ignored key points to try to form a strawman of my views. It’s a repeated behavior of yours.
Which countries, specifically, has Scandinavia conducted an imperialistic campaign over? Please specify the countries. So far you have kept it nebulous.
or is it exclusively through this indirect mechanism of end-stage-capitalism imperialism that it occurs just generally/globally?
Imperialism is a stage in capitalism, not an individual action, just like there’s no such thing as a single company in a vacuum, as the existence of companies implies capital markets, labor markets, and commodity markets all in general the company is operating within. Imperialism is a material process where the imperial core exports capital to the global south, taking advantage of development gaps and hard/soft power to super-exploit them for super-profits.
Scandinavia plays a bloody role in imperialism:
It was for these reasons that I linked resources on what imperialism actually is, and why capitalism necessarily evolves into it. Imperialism is also why socialist revolution has largely happened in exploited countries, rather than more developed ones as initially predicted by Marx. Capitalism may pave the way for socialism, but not in an even manner like social democrats would have you believe.
Hmm, that reads the same as British East India Company-era colonialism tbh.
On the sale of weapons: doesn’t china sell weapons, too, though? A brief answer will do.