Why China's Capital Exports Can Weaken Imperialism

This document was uploaded by one of our users. The uploader already confirmed that they had the permission to publish it. If you are author/publisher or own the copyright of this documents, please report to us by using this DMCA report form.

Simply click on the Download Book button.

Yes, Book downloads on Ebookily are 100% Free.

Sometimes the book is free on Amazon As well, so go ahead and hit "Search on Amazon"

The rise of China has prompted US geostrategic thinkers over the past decade to talk about the degree to which another “world war” is inevitable, and has also contributed to growing accusations that China is “imperialist.” It will be argued that it is possible to accuse China of “imperialism” under the definitional outline Vladimir Lenin popularised, but only because, in his model of the world, he considered the export of capital to be a defining feature of imperialism; however, this is flawed because his model had no theoretical space for the mechanisms of national exploitation that prevailed at that time, most importantly the “drain” of wealth from India. This is because Lenin’s model was borrowed from that of John A. Hobson, who outright denied the “drain.” At the time, the claim of the “drain” was pioneered by Indian economist Dadabhai Naoroji, who in turn greatly influenced contemporary pioneers about the topic, namely Utsa Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik, whose framework offers useful insights. After reconstructing the term “imperialism,” it will be argued that Chinese capital exports are actually weakening national exploitation, which is weakening imperialism and raising tensions, not towards “inter-imperialist” conflict, but “hegemon–rival” conflict.

Author(s): Jay Tharappel
Publisher: World Review of Political Economy

Language: English
Commentary: decrypted from 6A503F73F81D1C97C63A10DFE0D73F81 source file
Pages: 23
Tags: China, India, Imperialism, Lenin, Naoroji, Hobson, Patnaik, Utsa, Prabhat, Thucydides