President Masoud Pezeshkian has voiced Iran’s readiness for “serious and constructive” cooperation with China, particularly within the framework of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), ahead of his planned visit to China later this month.
Even then China has substantial import controls and protectionist measures. For example, The Great Firewall is mostly a protectionist measure for domestic tech development.
There are neoliberals struggling for neoliberal policy in the PRC government and liberal policies for many industries, but the way it treats capital is usually more akin to a classic econ, Keynesian, and of course Marxist logic.
It may br faur to assume OP is speaking more about its international economic relations, where imperialist peers have exported neoliberal policy via something like the IMF. They .ake reference to the IMF. The usual aspects of neoliberalism in that context are to tie strings to loans for imperialized countries to convert their economies into (dependemcy) profit maximizers for imperialists. Cut their labor protections, abolish domestic food production via multiple means including removing protectionist barriers, leading to greater proletarianization for there to be workers for the imperialist-owned factories, cannibalization of social programs and many functions of the state that threaten this regime or remove opportunities for profit.
But even then China is at best somewhat complacent with other countries’ neoliberalism. They do not attach those strings and their direct investments tend to not involve net exploitation (vs. their domestic workforce). This is a debated point among Marxist nerds but I find the analyses in line with what I’ve described more convincing and rigorous.
I think the most salient criticism is that China’s strategy of economic integration is a double-edged sword. While the imperialists are stuck with the choice between attacking China and having unstable economies and profits, China is stuck trying to figure out what to do with their export-driven productive economy if they ever tried to decouple.
The term you’re looking for is imperialism, or financial imperialism, not neoliberalism. There are many Global South countries today that are obviously not imperialist and yet have their economic model fully adhere their to the neoliberal framework.
I mostly agree. I used both terms in their own context, while they’re also related, as imperialism frequently uses the imposition of neoliberalism to achieve its ends. If we ask how China could be fundamentally neoliberal we quickly exhaust the question domestically, so we’d need to look at how it could be neoliberal in a farther-reaching sense in that it imposes neoliberalism on other countries or strictly relies on an expansion of neoliberalism elsewhere in order to function.
OP thinks neoliberalism is when free trade lol.
Even then China has substantial import controls and protectionist measures. For example, The Great Firewall is mostly a protectionist measure for domestic tech development.
There are neoliberals struggling for neoliberal policy in the PRC government and liberal policies for many industries, but the way it treats capital is usually more akin to a classic econ, Keynesian, and of course Marxist logic.
It may br faur to assume OP is speaking more about its international economic relations, where imperialist peers have exported neoliberal policy via something like the IMF. They .ake reference to the IMF. The usual aspects of neoliberalism in that context are to tie strings to loans for imperialized countries to convert their economies into (dependemcy) profit maximizers for imperialists. Cut their labor protections, abolish domestic food production via multiple means including removing protectionist barriers, leading to greater proletarianization for there to be workers for the imperialist-owned factories, cannibalization of social programs and many functions of the state that threaten this regime or remove opportunities for profit.
But even then China is at best somewhat complacent with other countries’ neoliberalism. They do not attach those strings and their direct investments tend to not involve net exploitation (vs. their domestic workforce). This is a debated point among Marxist nerds but I find the analyses in line with what I’ve described more convincing and rigorous.
I think the most salient criticism is that China’s strategy of economic integration is a double-edged sword. While the imperialists are stuck with the choice between attacking China and having unstable economies and profits, China is stuck trying to figure out what to do with their export-driven productive economy if they ever tried to decouple.
The term you’re looking for is imperialism, or financial imperialism, not neoliberalism. There are many Global South countries today that are obviously not imperialist and yet have their economic model fully adhere their to the neoliberal framework.
I mostly agree. I used both terms in their own context, while they’re also related, as imperialism frequently uses the imposition of neoliberalism to achieve its ends. If we ask how China could be fundamentally neoliberal we quickly exhaust the question domestically, so we’d need to look at how it could be neoliberal in a farther-reaching sense in that it imposes neoliberalism on other countries or strictly relies on an expansion of neoliberalism elsewhere in order to function.