this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
138 points (96.6% liked)

World News

32269 readers
515 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] superkret@feddit.org 50 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

So they're now outsourcing production to the West? We've really come full circle.

[–] baru@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why do you assume the West? China often expands to other Asian countries. Or pretend to. E.g. after tariffs are applied to China you'll often see a huge increase in intra Asia trade. Followed by different Asian countries heavily increasing their exports. Usually by hiding the true origin (tariffs are applied to the origin, not some transhipment place).

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 weeks ago

Also a lot of infrastructure in Africa is being funded in China, their position there is only going to grow stronger.

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

This is what happens with production revolutions. We did the same thing, as did England.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 weeks ago

It'd be really funny if China building factories in Mexico causes NAFTA to collapse.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

And then we have mass worker revolts to seize the means of production in these countries right? Right?

[–] CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Woulda been funny. Not just for the obvious benefit of having an uprising and potential revolution in Europe, but also to see how genuine those "red millionaires" are about socialism with Chinese characteristics

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A bit nitpicky, but the idea behind SWCC isn't that the Capialists in the PRC are "the people's Capitalists" or anything, but that the State as a DotP allows market competition in a controlled manner similar to a birdcage. As these markets form monopolist syndicates, they centralize, and socialize, by which point the CPC increases public owership. Communism is achieved by degree, not by decree. Trying to achieve Communism through fiat has historically resulted in struggles and difficulties.

I recommend reading Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism for an overview of what that entails.

[–] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I also recommend The East is Still Red - Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century by Carlos Martinez, it does a great job of dispelling common myths about China and it's economy, foreign policy, etc with solid sources through a solidly materialist lens.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'm not sure why we care. It's just simple competition, if your opponent is able to sell a cheaper product, either lower your price or deal with it. It's basic capitalism.

While I'm for tariffs on import to at least make cost equal to minimum wage for workers (to equate for the pay wage differential) if the factories are being built in house, it means they are following country standards including wages, I don't see the issue.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Free market propaganda has never been applied under equal circumstances. It is rhetoric used by capital to reduce or destroy regulations, labor, national sovereignty, etc. Western industrialized capitalist coubtries built their industry and infrastructure using tariffs to protect it, then turned around and demanded the opposite from other countries so that they would have to buy their products and sell whatever those colonizer countries wanted (at the time, usualky raw materials).

Now that other countries are ascendant, US-based "free market" capital is gladly re-embracing protectionist logic. It has only ever been about maximizing their profits. The "theory" of free markets tails capital, it isn't a science or even a valid line of thought.

[–] azl@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And this behavior is somehow sold to the public as a way to boost the economic wellness of the people living under the isolationist programs, but instead it enables profiteering corporations to exert more control over the artificially narrowed market space.

Locking the door with the fox(es) in the henhouse.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

In some cases it has improved public welfare as industrial capital demanded infrastructure and education, though of course they also demanded as much of your day as possible for as little wage as possible. And as finance wins out it acts like a parasite on productivity while still demanding maximum time and minimal wages.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone -1 points 3 weeks ago

economics is far from a simple competition… things like game theory lead to monopolies being bad for everyone, and that’s what china wants in a lot of cases. the chinese government subsidises some of its industries dramatically so they can take over a global market and then slowly backs off the subsidies when they’ve killed their competition

it’s similar to microsoft’s embrace, extend, extinguish strategy

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Seems like a short lived plan. Just need to change laws so that Chinese owned vehicles have a tariff, no matter where they’re made. Of course, then they just create shell companies in the states/EU and the game of cat and mouse continues.

[–] jfrnz@lemm.ee 12 points 3 weeks ago

Why do we “need” to change laws to artificially inflate the price of cars? Don’t we give enough money and government control to Ford and GM?

[–] match@pawb.social 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

capitalists have no nation

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Not entirely true. There's a large difference between Nationalist Bourgeoisie and Imperialist Bourgeoisie. The Nationalists in Imperialized countries are progressive compared to the Imperialists that oppress both the Nationalist Bourgeosie and Proletarist in Imperialized countries.