All economies are “mixed,” ergo it isn’t a meaningful distinction. What is more useful is recognizing which aspect of the economy is the principle, ie which has the real dominant power, over large firms and key industries. Socialism is when the public sector is the principle aspect, Capitalism is when private ownership is the principle aspect. That’s why the PRC is Socialist, and the Nordic countries are Capitalist.
Judging which system is correct purely by looking to which countries have the highest happiness scores is myopic. We could use the same logic to say that Jeff Bezos has the most comfortable life, so we should all copy him. The problem is that we can’t. The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South, and because Private Ownership has domination over the state, worker protections and safety nets have been gradually sliding.
This is why having a good knowledge of theory and taking everything within a large context, rather than with harsh boundaries, is important to draw correct conclusions.
May I ask an honest question? Is your account run by 5 people? How do you find time to write thorough, well written responses to so many posts? We don’t always agree ideologically, but I really respect your methods.
Haha, it’s nothing like that. My job works more in spurts and waiting periods, so it largely depends on what’s going on in my work life. Plus, not every comment is bespoke, I usually draw from prior comments I’ve written if applicable and tweak if needed.
There are a few different reasons that give rise to these (false) conclusions, and different reasons manifest in different degrees. Ie, not everyone will have all of these reasons, but most have at least one.
Chauvanism. Intentionally or not, there is often a superstructural element to western thought derived from being a beneficiary of Imperialism that discredits the achievements of non-Western Leftists. The fact that a western revolution has failed to materialize leads to some westerners being defensive and thus discrediting the achievements of the PRC.
A lack of real analysis at what the PRC is economically structured as. It’s easy to not understand the makeup of the PRC’s economy if you don’t engage with it.
A lack of reading Marxist theory, and thus not being able to properly analyze structures from a Dialectical Materialist perspective.
In my opinion, those are the main 3 reasons for such conclusions.
I imagine the next deflection is something like ‘but china has the second largest number of billionares’, but as soon as you sort that list by per-capita it suddenly tells a very different story.
Workers rights in Denmark, an Imperialist country that is firmly under the control of Private Capital, are declining. Safety nets are eroding and unions are weakening, disparity is rising. The opposite is the case in the PRC, a rapidly developing country where Public Ownership is in control of the economy.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism. Analysis of China’s economic makeup affirms this method as true:
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%? The material conditions of Chinese citizens have dramatically improved, along with their faith in the government:
Further, China is not Imperialist. Rather than using financial Capital to provide large loans with clauses requiring countries to privatize industries for foreign capture, they focus on building up trade infrastructure and industrialization. This is because they need to create more customers, they don’t have an import-driven economy nor does private financial Capital control the state.
I recommend you check out this introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list I made, if you want to judge Marxists on their application of Marxism, then you should familiarize yourself with Marxism.
Again, I’ll remind you that Denmark is an Imperialist country, and a petro-state. It is dominated by the Private Sector, and has a well-developed labor aristocracy that has somewhat successfully organized into recieving some of the spoils of Imperialism, though this is fading and eroding over time as the workers have no control over the government or market. Denmark is also already a developed country, and has been one for a long time. That’s how it engages with Imperialism in the first place, large corporations developed and needed to spread outwards to retain legitimacy, they export the worst aspects of production to the Global South while importing the spoils.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
The PRC, on the other hand, is a developing country. Key metrics are rapidly rising, and a lot of this is due to programs like the Poverty Eradication Program that was successfully completed. I really like The Metamorphosis of Yunagudui to show just how massive that campaign was for the people it impacted.
Further, China does have unions, such as the All China Federation of Trade Unions, and the state regularly supports worker movements as well. That’s why it enjoys such high approval ratings, Unions are there to represent labor against Capital, and the government actually represents the people in the PRC while the state sides with corporations in Denmark. Unions are far more necessary in Denmark when greedy Capitalists run freely and can take whatever you have when you aren’t looking.
As for Imperialism, you’re assuming millitary intervention is Imperialism. Was it Imperialism when the US Union invaded and beat the Confederacy? Or when the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany? In the case of Tibet, Xinjiang, etc, approval rates for the CPC are quite high. A large part of that, for example, in Tibet, is because the majority of the population were slaves in a brutal caste system under the CIA-backed Dali Lama, and thus welcomed the PLA in open arms.
As for Taiwan, Both the CPC and Taiwan have stated that they are okay with the status quo, for now. With US backing lowering in Taiwan, we may see increased desire to integrate into the PRC to make up for their loss in revenue from the US.
The Belt and Road Initiative doesn’t work that way. 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.
Speech is restricted in China, that’s true. Corporations can’t say whatever they want and risk destabilizing the system, and Billionaires are regularly punished for speaking out. Individual workers aren’t really targeted much, both because they don’t pose a threat, and because speech is promoted among the working class. “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom” is a common saying in China, ie let many viewpoints be thrust into the sphere of conversation. In Capitalist countries, speech is firmly controlled by Private interests, if China did not restrict the speech of Capitalists they would flood the sphere with whatever they wanted.
For democracy, I’ll copy and paste my sources, as you clearly read none of them:
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%?
And yes, I speak to people living in China, read articles from Chinese people, and speak to people who left China. The ones who left China were the most interesting, in that they defended China when overhearing a rant about China my right-wing coworker went on. This actually starteda shift towards me being more positive on China and encouraged me to learn more. I find articles like The Revival of Capital and the Left Turn of the Mental Laborer to be fascinating. China is clearly not a paradise, but it’s also one of the fastest improving countries in the world, and that’s thanks to being Socialist and run by Marxist-Leninists.
I know the person you’re replying to won’t care to read these materials, but it sure helps for others reading through the comments with where to start educating themselves. Thanks!
No problem! That’s generally my strategy, people looking to argue online aren’t going to change their minds, they see it as a “win/lose” situation. Instead, I focus on refutation of absurd claims and well-sourced information more for onlookers to engage with. I really like Nia Frome’s articles on Red Sails called Marketing Socialism and On Dialectics, Or How to Defeat Enemies. They really help shape how I engage with others online, decisive and sharp refutation is very useful for onlookers to see.
For more fun articles on why people believe what they do, I’m a big fan of Roderic Day’s “Brainwashing” and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Those help dramatically with seeing that, really, there’s little convincing others directly in online debate, but there is hope for others whose material conditions have opened them up to new ideas to see and engage with more information they are curious about.
The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South
Finnish imperialism 💪🏼 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.
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.
There are a few problems here.
All economies are “mixed,” ergo it isn’t a meaningful distinction. What is more useful is recognizing which aspect of the economy is the principle, ie which has the real dominant power, over large firms and key industries. Socialism is when the public sector is the principle aspect, Capitalism is when private ownership is the principle aspect. That’s why the PRC is Socialist, and the Nordic countries are Capitalist.
Judging which system is correct purely by looking to which countries have the highest happiness scores is myopic. We could use the same logic to say that Jeff Bezos has the most comfortable life, so we should all copy him. The problem is that we can’t. The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South, and because Private Ownership has domination over the state, worker protections and safety nets have been gradually sliding.
This is why having a good knowledge of theory and taking everything within a large context, rather than with harsh boundaries, is important to draw correct conclusions.
May I ask an honest question? Is your account run by 5 people? How do you find time to write thorough, well written responses to so many posts? We don’t always agree ideologically, but I really respect your methods.
Haha, it’s nothing like that. My job works more in spurts and waiting periods, so it largely depends on what’s going on in my work life. Plus, not every comment is bespoke, I usually draw from prior comments I’ve written if applicable and tweak if needed.
Thanks for the kind words!
I’ll never understand people who insist China is ‘State Capitalism’ but Nordic countries are ideal socialism, somehow.
I’ll give you a hint: it’s about race.
There are a few different reasons that give rise to these (false) conclusions, and different reasons manifest in different degrees. Ie, not everyone will have all of these reasons, but most have at least one.
Chauvanism. Intentionally or not, there is often a superstructural element to western thought derived from being a beneficiary of Imperialism that discredits the achievements of non-Western Leftists. The fact that a western revolution has failed to materialize leads to some westerners being defensive and thus discrediting the achievements of the PRC.
A lack of real analysis at what the PRC is economically structured as. It’s easy to not understand the makeup of the PRC’s economy if you don’t engage with it.
A lack of reading Marxist theory, and thus not being able to properly analyze structures from a Dialectical Materialist perspective.
In my opinion, those are the main 3 reasons for such conclusions.
I imagine the next deflection is something like ‘but china has the second largest number of billionares’, but as soon as you sort that list by per-capita it suddenly tells a very different story.
Especially since that number is decreasing in recent years while GDP growth is still solidly positive.
Removed by mod
Workers rights in Denmark, an Imperialist country that is firmly under the control of Private Capital, are declining. Safety nets are eroding and unions are weakening, disparity is rising. The opposite is the case in the PRC, a rapidly developing country where Public Ownership is in control of the economy.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism. Analysis of China’s economic makeup affirms this method as true:
Further, China is democratic. It doesn’t have a western liberal democracy, but it does have a comprehensive Socialist democracy. You can read this article talking about why the Chinese democratic model is in place and why the people support it, or this article on how the Chinese model of democracy works in contrast to western democracy, or this short video on how it works, or this video on how elections work, or this article on the makeup of the NPC.
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%? The material conditions of Chinese citizens have dramatically improved, along with their faith in the government:
Further, China is not Imperialist. Rather than using financial Capital to provide large loans with clauses requiring countries to privatize industries for foreign capture, they focus on building up trade infrastructure and industrialization. This is because they need to create more customers, they don’t have an import-driven economy nor does private financial Capital control the state.
I recommend you check out this introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list I made, if you want to judge Marxists on their application of Marxism, then you should familiarize yourself with Marxism.
Removed by mod
You calling the person above a tankie just shows how ignorant you are.
They took the time, with references and without name-calling (something you immediately jumped to), to refute your claim about the Chinese government.
Why can’t we have honest, intellectual discussions on the internet?
Your behavior reflects how most people think about socialists.
Again, I’ll remind you that Denmark is an Imperialist country, and a petro-state. It is dominated by the Private Sector, and has a well-developed labor aristocracy that has somewhat successfully organized into recieving some of the spoils of Imperialism, though this is fading and eroding over time as the workers have no control over the government or market. Denmark is also already a developed country, and has been one for a long time. That’s how it engages with Imperialism in the first place, large corporations developed and needed to spread outwards to retain legitimacy, they export the worst aspects of production to the Global South while importing the spoils.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
The PRC, on the other hand, is a developing country. Key metrics are rapidly rising, and a lot of this is due to programs like the Poverty Eradication Program that was successfully completed. I really like The Metamorphosis of Yunagudui to show just how massive that campaign was for the people it impacted.
Further, China does have unions, such as the All China Federation of Trade Unions, and the state regularly supports worker movements as well. That’s why it enjoys such high approval ratings, Unions are there to represent labor against Capital, and the government actually represents the people in the PRC while the state sides with corporations in Denmark. Unions are far more necessary in Denmark when greedy Capitalists run freely and can take whatever you have when you aren’t looking.
As for Imperialism, you’re assuming millitary intervention is Imperialism. Was it Imperialism when the US Union invaded and beat the Confederacy? Or when the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany? In the case of Tibet, Xinjiang, etc, approval rates for the CPC are quite high. A large part of that, for example, in Tibet, is because the majority of the population were slaves in a brutal caste system under the CIA-backed Dali Lama, and thus welcomed the PLA in open arms.
As for Taiwan, Both the CPC and Taiwan have stated that they are okay with the status quo, for now. With US backing lowering in Taiwan, we may see increased desire to integrate into the PRC to make up for their loss in revenue from the US.
The Belt and Road Initiative doesn’t work that way. 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.
Speech is restricted in China, that’s true. Corporations can’t say whatever they want and risk destabilizing the system, and Billionaires are regularly punished for speaking out. Individual workers aren’t really targeted much, both because they don’t pose a threat, and because speech is promoted among the working class. “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom” is a common saying in China, ie let many viewpoints be thrust into the sphere of conversation. In Capitalist countries, speech is firmly controlled by Private interests, if China did not restrict the speech of Capitalists they would flood the sphere with whatever they wanted.
For democracy, I’ll copy and paste my sources, as you clearly read none of them:
And yes, I speak to people living in China, read articles from Chinese people, and speak to people who left China. The ones who left China were the most interesting, in that they defended China when overhearing a rant about China my right-wing coworker went on. This actually starteda shift towards me being more positive on China and encouraged me to learn more. I find articles like The Revival of Capital and the Left Turn of the Mental Laborer to be fascinating. China is clearly not a paradise, but it’s also one of the fastest improving countries in the world, and that’s thanks to being Socialist and run by Marxist-Leninists.
Thank you for your work in this thread comrade, its going to help a lot of people.
I appreciate it! 🫡
I said it elsewhere, but I do think now is an excellent time for agitation and developing clear lines.
I know the person you’re replying to won’t care to read these materials, but it sure helps for others reading through the comments with where to start educating themselves. Thanks!
No problem! That’s generally my strategy, people looking to argue online aren’t going to change their minds, they see it as a “win/lose” situation. Instead, I focus on refutation of absurd claims and well-sourced information more for onlookers to engage with. I really like Nia Frome’s articles on Red Sails called Marketing Socialism and On Dialectics, Or How to Defeat Enemies. They really help shape how I engage with others online, decisive and sharp refutation is very useful for onlookers to see.
For more fun articles on why people believe what they do, I’m a big fan of Roderic Day’s “Brainwashing” and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Those help dramatically with seeing that, really, there’s little convincing others directly in online debate, but there is hope for others whose material conditions have opened them up to new ideas to see and engage with more information they are curious about.
Liberals will always retreat to lazy name calling when faced with any real arguments.
Removed by mod
We see how fake democracy is in the US when it helped dozens of coups and are arresting people for protesting against a genocide
Why don’t you just call me a pinko commie? It’s clearly what you mean
Finnish imperialism 💪🏼 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.