How are you defining China as imperialist? Does China engage in global politics? Yes. Do they engage with global Capital? Yes. Do they use soft power to achieve nationalist aims in national conflicts? Sometimes. Are they a hegemon? Depends how you define hegemony, but its a fair assessment.
Do they use their military might to spread their influence and national agenda? No. Do they have Military bases in other countries? No (Russia has like 12, USA has like 130). Do they try to expand their territory? They engage in border conflicts and Taiwan is contentious, but mostly no.
Imperialism is using military might to establish economic dominance or neocolonialism, to establish economic monopolies and an imperialists friendly ruling class in a foreign country. Influencing another country can be regarded as hegemony, depending on the definition of hegemony being used, and imperial countries are hegemonic. But hegemony is soft power, imperialism is hard, direct domination. Hegemony is not imperialism.
Looking back over your comment, and realizing you also consider the EU as imperial, I think you’re confusing hegemony, in an IR/sociological context, for imperialism. EU is not imperialist. They are a function of like global capitalism, which is imperialist, but EU is not imperialist.
Well, they quitely took over what, 10% of Bhutan, since 2021 - and noone cares, because noone cares about Bhutan, right? Bhutan didn’t sold those territories, and isn’t even trying to defend them, because how would that work.
And that it is militarily a very good position in case they’d want to expand into India, that’s just a coincidence, I’m sure.
I mean yeah, I get it, compare it to the empire of evil and it looks benign. But it isn’t good, just a lesser of two evils.
I mean, that’s a really good example! And I appreciate it. Do you have any more resources about it? The wiki article is a little vague, and it would be interesting to compare with border skirmishes w India.
I’m a little hesitant to frame things as “evil” but I get your point. Its really hard to pin down China international policy, IMO, so having something concrete to review is always helpful.
Here’s my reasoning: Capitalism is global, capitalism is imperialist, the national or transnational character of capitalism is geographically dependent. The EU as an entity does not carry out imperialist activity outside of the national/transnational framing. It engages in trade, legal definition/refinement, regulation. It empowers capitalists within the EU to conduct business on a global stage. The EU does not have a military, it does not operate a military that functions imperialistically. It can serve as an organizing force that unites national capital to coordinate national militaries with the aims of empowering national capital to conduct business globally.
Honestly the more I think through this the harder it is to parse out differences. Most, if not all, EU members are imperialist, but the imperialist part of them is national, not transnational. Honestly I can’t really fault your perspective, and I’d like to develop it more than a “I’m right, you’re wrong” type debate would really allow. I’d be interested in resources that support your position.
France is absolutely imperialist on its own, the other EU powers are at least imperialist to the extent that they are and were directly involved in US imperialist wars. China is a different case, theoretically there is a possible future were china is the first post imperialist power. I think it’s much more likely though, that at some point they will use either military coercion, start militarily supporting „rebels“, or at some point do direct military intervention, to protect their investments abroad, the ones that they are currently building out.
Call me a cynic, but I think if China ever becomes the world hegemon, they will behave as such.
Hm. I mean, thats a really good point. Now you’ve got me thinking about the differences between neocolonialism and hegemony, as well as the difference between the historic imperialism of EU nations, vs the role of the EU; as well as like how the national interests of a formerly imperialist country functions within the imperialism of global capital. Not sure where to start but its a very compelling line.
Re: China as global hegemon, we are all becoming Mearsheimer-ists, aren’t we?
How are you defining China as imperialist? Does China engage in global politics? Yes. Do they engage with global Capital? Yes. Do they use soft power to achieve nationalist aims in national conflicts? Sometimes. Are they a hegemon? Depends how you define hegemony, but its a fair assessment.
Do they use their military might to spread their influence and national agenda? No. Do they have Military bases in other countries? No (Russia has like 12, USA has like 130). Do they try to expand their territory? They engage in border conflicts and Taiwan is contentious, but mostly no.
Imperialism is using military might to establish economic dominance or neocolonialism, to establish economic monopolies and an imperialists friendly ruling class in a foreign country. Influencing another country can be regarded as hegemony, depending on the definition of hegemony being used, and imperial countries are hegemonic. But hegemony is soft power, imperialism is hard, direct domination. Hegemony is not imperialism.
Looking back over your comment, and realizing you also consider the EU as imperial, I think you’re confusing hegemony, in an IR/sociological context, for imperialism. EU is not imperialist. They are a function of like global capitalism, which is imperialist, but EU is not imperialist.
Well, they quitely took over what, 10% of Bhutan, since 2021 - and noone cares, because noone cares about Bhutan, right? Bhutan didn’t sold those territories, and isn’t even trying to defend them, because how would that work.
And that it is militarily a very good position in case they’d want to expand into India, that’s just a coincidence, I’m sure.
I mean yeah, I get it, compare it to the empire of evil and it looks benign. But it isn’t good, just a lesser of two evils.
I mean, that’s a really good example! And I appreciate it. Do you have any more resources about it? The wiki article is a little vague, and it would be interesting to compare with border skirmishes w India.
I’m a little hesitant to frame things as “evil” but I get your point. Its really hard to pin down China international policy, IMO, so having something concrete to review is always helpful.
Only whan Bhutan newspapers output - Kuensel and the other one I forgot the name (paywal https://kuenselonline.com/dz/news/bhutan-china-border-talks).
Bhutan is literally being polite invaded and is doing anything to deescalate and stop, but it is a much weaker party. They tried formal protests in Chinese Embassy in India, they are trying… negotiations (e. g. https://www.mfa.gov.bt/joint-press-release-on-the-25th-round-of-boundary-talks-between-bhutan-and-china/), but they are still being annexed against their will by China - see also https://blogs.soas.ac.uk/china-institute/2024/12/18/the-bhutan-anomaly/
Thanks, I’ll look these over
Separate comment because its easier to talk that way:
That sentence does not make sense. Its a shade of green but not green makes no fucking sense.
Here’s my reasoning: Capitalism is global, capitalism is imperialist, the national or transnational character of capitalism is geographically dependent. The EU as an entity does not carry out imperialist activity outside of the national/transnational framing. It engages in trade, legal definition/refinement, regulation. It empowers capitalists within the EU to conduct business on a global stage. The EU does not have a military, it does not operate a military that functions imperialistically. It can serve as an organizing force that unites national capital to coordinate national militaries with the aims of empowering national capital to conduct business globally.
Honestly the more I think through this the harder it is to parse out differences. Most, if not all, EU members are imperialist, but the imperialist part of them is national, not transnational. Honestly I can’t really fault your perspective, and I’d like to develop it more than a “I’m right, you’re wrong” type debate would really allow. I’d be interested in resources that support your position.
France is absolutely imperialist on its own, the other EU powers are at least imperialist to the extent that they are and were directly involved in US imperialist wars. China is a different case, theoretically there is a possible future were china is the first post imperialist power. I think it’s much more likely though, that at some point they will use either military coercion, start militarily supporting „rebels“, or at some point do direct military intervention, to protect their investments abroad, the ones that they are currently building out.
Call me a cynic, but I think if China ever becomes the world hegemon, they will behave as such.
Hm. I mean, thats a really good point. Now you’ve got me thinking about the differences between neocolonialism and hegemony, as well as the difference between the historic imperialism of EU nations, vs the role of the EU; as well as like how the national interests of a formerly imperialist country functions within the imperialism of global capital. Not sure where to start but its a very compelling line.
Re: China as global hegemon, we are all becoming Mearsheimer-ists, aren’t we?