this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
819 points (94.4% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
1615 readers
88 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Finnish imperialism πͺπΌ Not sure what sort of imperialism Finland for example is doing that for example China isn't. We are super-exploiting them in the same way, as in doing trade and having our companies operate in those countries.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
Essentially, Finland (and Imperialist countries in general) operate on a principle of unequal exchange. By leveraging mechanisms like IMF loans with clauses requiring privatization of resources and industry for foreign capture, to relying on overseas production to super-exploit for super-profits, to simply relying on high interest rates on foreign loans, Imperialist countries consume more of the Global South's value than they provide the Global South.
China doesn't operate in that way. China is a country focused on selling goods it produces, ergo it cares more to have customers. The BRI and BRICs exist purely to build up more customers, it's neither charity nor Imperialism. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren't the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The "Chinese Debt Trap" is a Myth.
China also has companies that operate the exact same way and buy resources from Global South. It has a much bigger impact too, sometimes dominating the local economy. I honestly don't see any real difference between Finnish and Chinese trade, than some perceived or claimed difference in ideology behind it. And Finland isn't much of a loan giver to other countries. Finland is a member of IMF but so is China and China actually does do loans to Global South. Not sure I would count membership in IMF and loaning money itself exploitative, but if you consider that as exploitation, then surely it counts for China more than Finland?
China needs rare Earth for its own production, which drives the reason it is involved in Africa to begin with. The difference is that China needs to sell its goods internationally, so it can't just relentlessly exploit these countries. As a consequence, it frequently forgives loans, and moreover does not require clauses requiring privatization of nationalized resources to do so. China's economic model requires some degree of multilateralism to continue to exist, it isn't a consumption driven economy nor one dominated by private financialized Capital.
Finland's economy is externally driven, it relies on brutal production in the Global South for much of its commodities, and does so with immense financialized Capital. China's is internally driven and focused far more on manufacturing and selling.
We all need to do trade. The only difference you've outlined so far is that China's economy isn't at the same service economy point as more advanced economies, otherwise it's the same. By that merit Finland became a imperialistic country exploiting Global South quite late, which I guess is nice.
Trade is necessary, yes. The difference becomes apparent when you look at the manner and character of exchange. Countries dominated by private, financialized Capital without exception rely on Imperialism to continue, but the PRC's economy is driven by manufacturing and public ownership. It is unlikely that the PRC will make a hard pivot towards such a privately dominated financialized economy because it was run precisely to avoid such a situation to begin with, as its run by Marxists.
What you are saying has no concrete difference to the people on the other end. If Finland and China are doing the same sort of actions there, then I'd consider them the same on that measure. So either both are exploiting them or neither is.
And personally I'd say those actions are inherently exploitative not because of the specific ideology behind it but because countries in a better position (richer, stronger, more influential) have a stronger negotiation position than countries in a worse position (poorer and weaker).
What would make a difference is if either of the countries we are comparing are abusing that position (more than the other). And I don't think that's the case, of course considering the relative strength of their negotiation position.
They aren't doing the "same sort of action," though. Finland is not building up dramatic industry nor is it trying to access minerals to produce for customers, but rather is trying to access cheap labor forces to produce goods for itself. I quite clearly showed why it's entirely different, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Finland is not building up the Global South, but looting it, while China must build up the Global South in order to have customers. Here's a post from a Marxist perspective, with good resources linked at the bottom.
All countries will inevitably have different levels of power. By labeling any interaction between more and less powerful countries "exploitation," you mask the real differences between the character and scale of interactions. The countries in BRI are benefiting tremendously from increased development, including higher life expectancies, purchasing power, wages, and more, but the same traditionally is not the case in traditional Western Imperialism as depressing wages is what drives the benefits of overseas production. China wants their wages to rise so they can buy more Chinese goods, Finland wants wages to fall so production is cheaper. Very different.
I think you need to look more critically and less ideologically.
China is also buying stuff to benefit from cheaper labour where there's advantage in that. It's just how trade works for pretty much every single country in a global economy. Every country is serving their domestic interests. You're kidding yourself if you think China doing the same is better somehow than Finland doing it.
China isn't exactly a struggling economy having to trade to survive. They're benefiting from other countries same as Finland. It's just that Finnish economy has largely moved away from manufacturing and has bigger sectors elsewhere whereas China hasn't yet.
Not that Finland being economically in the same situation as China would actually change anything for the people at the other end of the trade.
China doesn't want labour costs to rise because it hits them too but they want them ro rise to be able to sell higher end products. That's not different to Finland either. Benefits to both. Both neither Finland nor China want their imports to be more expensive (while wanting to export more expensive stuff)
*looks at your entire account*
China is not exporting its production, it is relying on its own production. Trade isn't inherently exploitative. You're correct in saying that every country works for its own interests, my point is that because of the systemic makeup of the PRC's economy this drives the best path to their own interests being more cooperative than exploitative, as their economy relies on exports more than imports. They aren't offshoring their production with immense private backing and intentionally depressing wages in the Global South, they want conditions to improve so their investment money returns multiple in sales due to increased wages.
And yes, I am a Communist. I am a Communist because I critically examine these systems. China is not free from sin nor a perfect Utopia, but it isn't Imperialist either and to equate its involvement in quantity or quality to Finland is something that can only be attributable to ideological basis, not critical.
It is also buying production for some sectors.
What's the thing about no ethical consumption?
You need to do more investigation than just that.
Secondly, trade is not Capitalism. Capitalism is not trade. When people speak of that, it's because consumption within a Capitalist framework will always go to the bourgeoisie and usually support Imperialism overseas, but that isn't an inherent quality of trade.
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.
As I said earlier, they are not doing the exact same business. Feel free to go back earlier in the thread!
You claimed so and your point was that China is just built different (but the actions are actually same). That's what makes this amusing.
My point has never been that their actions are the same. You boiled down complex relations to simple "trade," when the complexities and directions make it entirely different in outcome. That's like saying a surgeon and a knife-murderer are the same, because they both cut people.
I'm just saying since both do the same actions with the same effect on the country, it doesn't make much difference to the country in question. So I would judge them the same. But I think there might be a bit of an ideological bent at play here.
They don't do the same actions, and they don't have the same effect. I already explained some of the complexities back here. I'm sure there is an ideological bent at play trying to make you see Finland's documented Imperialism in a way that surely can't be any worse than a non-Western country.
Again, Finland's consumption is largely the labor of the Global South, and as such has played a role in depressing wages. China's consumption is largely its own labor, and since it needs to export commodities, it focuses on improving wages in the Global South and takes a multilateral approach, as its most profitable for them to raise up more customers.
Your mentioned differences are more due to the size difference between Finland and China than anything else, but Finnish companies have been involved in infrastructure projects too.
Hah indeed.
Finland (Finnish companies) is buying resources, involved in infrastructure projects, building factories, buying stuff they export. It's just the same sort of business China does. China is just a much bigger player with a much more pronounced effect.
Read the sources I linked. There is both a quantitative and qualitative difference, and its driven by the fact that Finland deals with the Global South as an employer exploits an employee, and China deals with the Global South as a store selling to customers. Finnish people as a whole live similar to landlords, off the backs of others, while China lives off of its own labor and needs customers to sell to.
China also works as an employer, though they sometimes also bring their own workers for resource extraction which imo seems more exploitative tbh. Not sure China is doing imperialism when they are an employer if that's what imperialism is.
For seemingly the dozenth time, I am asking you to read the sources. If you aren't going to accept my explanations, then look at the sources.
Fundamentally, the manner in which China approaches trade is focused on multilateralism, not on relying on using an overseas workforce in order to export the largest misery and only keep the more privledged forms of labor domestically as Finland, and the rest of the West, does.
If you want to learn more about Imperialism specifically, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is an excellent work, and the underlying analysis of structures has continued to this day. Michael Hudson's Super-Imperialism is US-focused, but continues that frame of analysis to the modern day.
I am looking at the sources but I am not seeing the exact difference. If a Chinese company and a Finnish company are both buying manufacturing, somehow one of them is imperialistic and the other isn't. It's just a very hard concept to understand. You'd think for the country at the other end and escpially on people level only the company that is paying the wages changes.
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.
I didn't see any comparison of such contracts.
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.
It seems you're talking about "Western countries" as a unit and not specifically about Finland, which was the topic of the discussion. It would be a lot more fruitful to directly compare the two when the discussion is about the two.
There aren't going to be many sources in general specifically comparing Finland to China. I included sources in the beginning about the role the Nordics play in Western Imperialism. It's important to understand that the Western countries all are generally a part of the same Imperialist organization, spearheaded by the US, supported by its hundreds of millitary bases worldwide and unilateral control of institutions like the IMF.
Finland in particular is not the mastermind behind Western Imperialism, but it gladly accepts the presense of it and enjoys the spoils, a portion of which it uses to bribe its Proletariat against revolution with good safety nets and social services.
All of the backing for this is in the sources I have provided.
A comparison doesn't necessarily need sources comparing the two but sources about what sort of contracts and deals companies from both countries have made. Without that you can't really compare the two tbh.
China is member of the IMF too. I feel like China might have a bit more say over IMF than Finland does tbh.
So are we guilty from benefiting of it even if you can't really point to something we are actually doing that's worse than what China is doing? I was hoping to hear from some actual practises and concrete actions from both painting Finland in bad light but it sounds more like guilt by association situation.
I've already provided sources you have freely ignored, I have pointed to them and provided summaries from myself and in other sources. I am aware that China is in the IMF, and I offered sources on how its fundamentally different, and explained why that's the case, through showing the different economic goals needed to best support each economy.
Moreover, my point isn't that Finland has a larger impact individually than China, but that the impact Finland has is negative and extractionist while China's is positive.
If you want to do your own research and find loan specifics, which are often discrete, compile them all into a large dataset, and compare and contrast each unique clause and condition, be my guest. I have offered more than enough sources going over the how and why.
The thing is, even if I found exactly what you wanted, you still would invent a reason not to read through it just like you have with the other sources (minis the Yanis one, which I will admit not knowing the video was removed).
If your sources have specifically talked about Finland then I've managed to miss those parts. It seems more general talk about "the West" and that's not very helpful.
I was hoping something directly showing this.
You could quote it here and then link to it. That's usually what I do.
E: Wow this reached "max comment depth". All in all, I don't think there ever was anything directly about Finland, just "Western countries" this or that. Western countries have done bad things, Finland is a Western country, so Finland bad. It seems all very simplistic.
Finland is no different from the general Western strategy, it's a beneficiary of using the IMF to economically dominate and underdevelop the Global South for cheap imports. China doesn't want cheap imports, they want customers to export to and raw materials in countries they trade with to make those exports, so they necessarily must take a separate strategy.
The backings for both are in the sources I have listed. I have linked short overviews, and long, in-depth books like Super-Imperialism that paint a clearer picture. There's no single quote directly comparing Finland to China that I can find, but a wealth of literature on the differences between how China interacts with the Global South vs the Western countries, including the special role the Nordics in general play.
So yes, I provided many sources directly showing how Finland participates in predatory extraction and how China focuses on multilateralism, not out of charity, but out of having a different economic model with different requirements for success.