US, Chinese and Russian Investment in the Developing World

US imperialism is a nasty and ugly thing. It’s paranoid, and it’s out to dominate the world. In contrast, Russia is not an imperialist power. Russia just wants friends and allies, not enemies. They are not out to dominate others; they want cooperation. There is still a lot of the spirit of the old USSR in Russia. Putin after all was a KGB man.

For instance, Russia is friends with many socialist states. They are very close to Venezuela, China, Vietnam and Cuba. They don’t care what kind of economic system you have in our country. Russia retained many of the more or less socialist allies of the old USSR in its sphere. It has not been pressuring them to get rid of socialism and adopt capitalism.

China is similar. Chinese investment in Africa does not care what kind of state or system the Africans have. They can be socialist, capitalist, or anything in between.

Russian and Chinese investment in the 3rd World is done more on a basis of mutual cooperation as opposed to imperialist exploitation which is typical of US imperialism.

When the US goes into a foreign country, they demand conditions favorable to US firms. This usually means favoring the wealthy elite of the country at the expense of the masses. The US tends to oppose any socialism in countries they invest in, and they often demand radical free market changes in the economy as a condition of investment. The US military is often as a threat used to force foreign countries to dismantle their socialism are put in radical neoliberal capitalism.

For example, the US opposes attempts to raise the minimum wage in 3rd World countries. Aristide in Haiti was overthrown by the US in part because he dared to raise the minimum wage. The US-backed coup in Honduras was sparked Zelaya’s raising of the minimum wage.

One reason is that Russia and China do not have many large non-state corporations yet. The Russian and Chinese firms that are involved in the 3rd World are often either state firms or quasi-state firms. Russia helps develop oil via their state oil corporation and makes money selling arms from state arms firms. So Russian and Chinese investment is done more on a win-win basis. Not quite solidarity, but at least not imperialist exploitation.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

13 thoughts on “US, Chinese and Russian Investment in the Developing World”

  1. Dear Robert
    I don’t know about Russia, but I agree with you about China. China goes to Africa and other places to do businesss, not to tell natives what to do. This of course means that no regime, however bad, will be threatened by China. However, it also means that no regime, whatever its ideology, will be subverted by China.

    We can read frequent lamentations in the Western press about the fact that there are now around 750,000 Chinese living in Africa, Well, there are over a billion people in Africa, and none of these 750,000 Chinese carries a gun. As long as the Chinese keep their troops at home and don’t sow the world with military bases as the Americans have done, I won’t worry about Chinese ïmperialism.

    Regards. James

    1. @ James Schipper

      Just curious, how do you view the Indo-Chinese war of the 1950s? Or the recent spat between Vietnam and China over those islands? I’m not implying anything, I just want to see how you interpret these events.

      1. “Or the recent spat between Vietnam and China over those islands?”

        The conflict over the Spratleys involves more than just Vietnam. Also, a more pertinant conflict to look at would be the Third Indochinese War where the Vietnamese fought off chinese imperialism only shortly after fighting off American imperialists and taking out an utterly disgusting regime in Cambodia (which was supported by the “benevolent” Chinese).

        1. I am somewhat concerned with China’s growing clout. I don’t mind China as a counter weight to US imperialism, but I’m not sure about it leading the new world order. I don’t mind Asia overtaking and replacing the west, what concerns me is state of the world order if that were to occur. The west has given the world human rights, war crime tribs, and literally invented the modern world (I know this will provoke some extreme cynicism but bear with me). If Asia can bring something of similar substance to the table then fine. Currently the Asian model is a deal with society where freedom is exchanged for economic prosperity. Utterly unacceptable.

  2. Dear Ken
    The US war in Afghanistan is a low-cost war. It may tire the US psychologically, but it can’t serious impair American strength. If the US were to stay another there another 20 years, it would have only a marginal effect on the American economy or on the military strength of the US. The number of American casualties in Afg. in a year is smaller than the number of Americans that die in car accidents in one month. The American labor force is about 150 million while the American troops in Afg. are under 100,000. This means that not even 1/10 of 1% of the American labor force is in Afg.
    I think that the American war in Afg. is beyond stupid, but it is a stupidity that demands a small price. The main motive for the continuation of American involvement in Afg. is prestige. It is to avoid the appearance of failure. That was also the main motive for continuing the Vietnam War after 1966. The difference however is that the Vietnam War was much more costly.

    Regards. James

    1. The US war in Afghanistan is a low-cost war. It may tire the US psychologically, but it can’t serious impair American strength. If the US were to stay another there another 20 years, it would have only a marginal effect on the American economy or on the military strength of the US.

      Bullshit. At least as far as cost is concerned.

      The escalation of fighting in Afghanistan, coupled with the insanely stupid invasion and occupation of Iraq, has effectively begun the downward death spiral of the American empire, two decades before it should have happened.

      A $trillion here, a $trillion there…All the while the U.S is de-industrializing, and it’s tax base it either shrunk or totally underutilized(think the corporations and very rich).

      Hell, if anything, the U.S war in Afghanistan has become more expensive in terms of outright financial cost. At one point, it was costing something like $450.00 dollars a gallon of gas, just to airlift the shit it. Less Americans may be dying than in Iraq, but it costs a lot more to keep them there.

      I do agree it is about prestige though, and maintenance of the appearance of still lasting global American hegemony.

  3. Dear Dota
    The war between India and China in the 1950’s was a border dispute, as is the spat between China and Vietnam. Even if China is in the wrong in these conflicts, that is not proof of an imperialist foreign policy. The Argentinians were in the wrong in the Falklands War, but that war was not a manisfestation of Argentinian imperialism.

    Dear Cyrus.
    You should look at total military expenditure by the US. Despite the conflicts in Afg. and Iraq, the US spends less than 6% of its GDP on the military. That is a smaller cost than having about 10% of the labor force unemployed. The US could obtain far more economic benefits by putting its jobless to work than by ending the war in Afg.

    Regards. James
    Regards. James

    1. Hah! 6% percent of the total GDP?…If you actually buy that figure. Don’t tell me, you are one of those guys who thinks the current unemployment rate is only 9%, to?

      The bottom line is, the U.S federal government collects about $2.2 trillion in taxes every year…And ends up spending nearly half of it on the military, in one form or another. If you chopped that in half by ending two very stupid wars, you could pour that right back into the economy, through everything from infrastructure maintenance and expansion to research and development in competitive industries. All of this would create real jobs. Productive and competitive jobs internationally. Something that military budget sure as hell doesn’t do.

      Oh, and the Sino-Indian war took place in 1962, and not in the 50’s. Technically a border dispute, in reality it was a successful attempt by China to put India “in it’s place.” Something the Chinese did very well. India has not risked another war with China, since.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

      Careful with the wiki article…A lot of Indian/Hindu fan-boys probably hover over it.

      1. ” All of this would create real jobs”

        The defense industry, and all the people who work in it, would throw a shit fit if the US took a different foreign policiy position. It would fuck their industry and jobs good. They want the money (and blood) to keep flowing so they can make a profit and keep their jobs.

        1. Oh, you don’t have to tell me, Wade. Lets just say the American half of my family owes the defense industry dearly, circa 1940-2000. I personally even today am still reaping it’s benefits in many ways.

          Growing up, I was a “defense industry brat.” That does not mean I cannot tell what is good for my country, and what is not. 🙂

  4. “””Oh, and the Sino-Indian war took place in 1962, and not in the 50′s. “””

    Yeah that was my goof and not that of James. For some retarded reason I always confuse the dates of that war with the 1950s invasion of Egypt by Israel. I’ll now sheepishly make my way out of here =p

  5. Gerald Celente said it best “The Business of America is war, The business of China is Business.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uGfvTBXZvE

    China is the only country I see that it doing anything right both domestically and in foreign policy with massive infrastructure projects and investment in new industry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.