147
submitted 1 month ago by schizoidman@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] superkret@feddit.org 52 points 1 month ago

So they're now outsourcing production to the West? We've really come full circle.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 month ago

The difference is that they're not doing it at the expense of hollowing out their domestic industry. They're supplementing their own industry by building additional industry around the world.

[-] switchboard_pete@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago

"it's just supplemental" would have initially worked to describe us industry shifting out

investment is finite, so if you have the choice between a and b, investing more money in a is by definition investing in a at the expense of b

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago

"it's just supplemental" would have initially worked to describe us industry shifting out

The difference being that China is not neoliberal. This does not coincide with deindustriakization, crushing unions, maximizing "free markets", etc. It also does not correspond to anything like the regimes the US used to make offshoring in its own interests, namely to force imbalanced export economies on other countries premised on unequal exchange and a dollar-heavy (im)balance of payments. Worst case scenario of success is that other countries, particularly in Africa, develop industry, infrastructure, and good jobs while China gains trading partners and stays heavily industrialized, as they care for their real economy.

investment is finite, so if you have the choice between a and b, investing more money in a is by definition investing in a at the expense of b

At the level of entire countries this logic can break down. For example, third world countries have to figure out what to do with all these dollars they receive from their imbalanced export economies. You can't just spend it on anything, yiur country needs to function and you can't buy everything from everyone at fair prices this way.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago

This problem only occurs in capitalist economies where finance capital directs development. Meanwhile, all the critical economy in China is state owned. In fact, the share of private industry in China has been shrinking. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] baru@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Why do you assume the West? China often expands to other Asian countries. Or pretend to. E.g. after tariffs are applied to China you'll often see a huge increase in intra Asia trade. Followed by different Asian countries heavily increasing their exports. Usually by hiding the true origin (tariffs are applied to the origin, not some transhipment place).

[-] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago

Also a lot of infrastructure in Africa is being funded in China, their position there is only going to grow stronger.

[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

This is what happens with production revolutions. We did the same thing, as did England.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 32 points 1 month ago

This is Western liberal cope. China makes 5-year plans and publishes them. Building factories around the world is a massive planning effort. They are not reacting to tarrifs that were levied in the last 18 months. The tarrifs are a reaction.

China has been building international infrastructure, including factories, for years now. By the time a factory comes online to "avoid tarrifs" the tarrifs would have already had their maximal effect. Further, tarrif regimes can be changed in hours while factories take years to plan and execute. There is simply no way China is thinking they're going to outmaneuver recent tarrifs with factories.

It's nonsense

[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago

You forgot one thing though: China bad

check mate 😏

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 month ago

It'd be really funny if China building factories in Mexico causes NAFTA to collapse.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And then we have mass worker revolts to seize the means of production in these countries right? Right?

[-] CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago

Woulda been funny. Not just for the obvious benefit of having an uprising and potential revolution in Europe, but also to see how genuine those "red millionaires" are about socialism with Chinese characteristics

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

A bit nitpicky, but the idea behind SWCC isn't that the Capialists in the PRC are "the people's Capitalists" or anything, but that the State as a DotP allows market competition in a controlled manner similar to a birdcage. As these markets form monopolist syndicates, they centralize, and socialize, by which point the CPC increases public owership. Communism is achieved by degree, not by decree. Trying to achieve Communism through fiat has historically resulted in struggles and difficulties.

I recommend reading Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism for an overview of what that entails.

[-] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I also recommend The East is Still Red - Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century by Carlos Martinez, it does a great job of dispelling common myths about China and it's economy, foreign policy, etc with solid sources through a solidly materialist lens.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm not sure why we care. It's just simple competition, if your opponent is able to sell a cheaper product, either lower your price or deal with it. It's basic capitalism.

While I'm for tariffs on import to at least make cost equal to minimum wage for workers (to equate for the pay wage differential) if the factories are being built in house, it means they are following country standards including wages, I don't see the issue.

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 month ago

Free market propaganda has never been applied under equal circumstances. It is rhetoric used by capital to reduce or destroy regulations, labor, national sovereignty, etc. Western industrialized capitalist coubtries built their industry and infrastructure using tariffs to protect it, then turned around and demanded the opposite from other countries so that they would have to buy their products and sell whatever those colonizer countries wanted (at the time, usualky raw materials).

Now that other countries are ascendant, US-based "free market" capital is gladly re-embracing protectionist logic. It has only ever been about maximizing their profits. The "theory" of free markets tails capital, it isn't a science or even a valid line of thought.

[-] azl@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 month ago

And this behavior is somehow sold to the public as a way to boost the economic wellness of the people living under the isolationist programs, but instead it enables profiteering corporations to exert more control over the artificially narrowed market space.

Locking the door with the fox(es) in the henhouse.

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

In some cases it has improved public welfare as industrial capital demanded infrastructure and education, though of course they also demanded as much of your day as possible for as little wage as possible. And as finance wins out it acts like a parasite on productivity while still demanding maximum time and minimal wages.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Seems like a short lived plan. Just need to change laws so that Chinese owned vehicles have a tariff, no matter where they’re made. Of course, then they just create shell companies in the states/EU and the game of cat and mouse continues.

[-] jfrnz@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

Why do we “need” to change laws to artificially inflate the price of cars? Don’t we give enough money and government control to Ford and GM?

[-] match@pawb.social 4 points 1 month ago

capitalists have no nation

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not entirely true. There's a large difference between Nationalist Bourgeoisie and Imperialist Bourgeoisie. The Nationalists in Imperialized countries are progressive compared to the Imperialists that oppress both the Nationalist Bourgeosie and Proletarist in Imperialized countries.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
147 points (96.8% liked)

World News

32317 readers
477 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS