On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Vngelis wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:44 pm, John Holmes <jhol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, nada wrote:
>>> ...
>>> But John, all imperialist investment does the *exact same thing*.
>>> Certainly you are not for *imperialist* investment that contorts local
>>> economies around ex****t capitalism are you? What *difference* is there
>>> between Chinese investments and Imperialist ones, pray tell? Does the
>>> local victims, the working class and farmers, see a difference?
>>
>>> David
>>
>> These are very good questions, to which the Northites do not supply
>> any real answers in their piece, other than assertions.
>>
>> The very fact that the Chinese are investing nine billion dollars in
>> of all places the Congo seems to imply to me that this is not quite
>> like the reality of the Marshall Plan, although it may correspond to
>> the *imagery* put forth to embellish it by the American government.
>>
>> I do not, personally or politically, have any investment in what the
>> answer to these very good questions are. I would like to know. I don't
>> consider the Northites' assertions to be adequate answers.
>>
>> I don't think all nine billion of those dollars are going solely to
>> get the mines up and running and fixing up railcars and track to
>> trans****t precious metals out of the Congo to China. If so, that
>> sounds like a poor investment choice and bad business. Too much
>> overhead for too little return.
>>
>> Sure, a billion dollars ain't what it used to be, but a billion here
>> and a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money.
>>
>> -jh-
>
> China needs raw materials for its industry.
> The Northites being Americans see this as 'evil' for they just put the
> word 'imperialist' infront of the investment and all is solved.
>
> The Chinese will deal with Africa a lot more fairly than the Euro-
> Americans.
Naturally I hope Vangelis is right about this. I do not have a lot of
faith in Stalinists and their good intentions.
> David assumes that Russian investment to for instance Bulgaria after
> WW2 was also ...imperialist.
> Hence he is against it.
David can speak for himself of course.
It should be noted that in the *immediate* aftermath of WWII, while
the US/Soviet alliance still existed in 1946, there were some efforts
on the Soviet part to ape American imperialism. The Soviets got oil
concessions in Iran, and at one point were even suggesting that
Libya I think it was should become a Soviet "protectorate."
After Winston Churchill made his "iron curtain" speech in 1946, the
Soviet army withdrew from Iran, and Soviet policy in the Third World
became anti-imperialist.
>
> The use of Chinese labour in Africa where africans could be used is
> reprehensible...
>
Somehow, I doubt that Chinese investors, whether state or private
capitalist, can be faulted on this score. After all, African laborers,
besides being local, would presumably get paid lower wages, as general
wage levels are lower in Africa than in China.
-jh-
|
