Does anyone take the idea of neocolonialism seriously?

Does anyone take the idea of neocolonialism seriously?

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/02/10/guest-post-africas-role-in-addressing-chinas-dominance-of-rare-earths/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Chinese try to invest in Africa
>Europeans laugh, because they already know it's impossible

Depends on how you define neocolonialism. Going by the standard vocabulary definition, no.
In a wider sense, you could argue China in Africa, but really what they do is more like sheer economic exploitation than colonization. They behave more like a multinational than a foreign government.

>invest
Nigga what they do isn't investing, it's straight barter. I chinaman build you bridge, you congoman give me over 9000 tons of copper.

I don't take anything with the prefix "neo" in it seriously. Only marxists do.

But what about neoplatonism? Or neoclassicism and neorealism?
There are a lot of interesting neo-s user, don't be prejudiced.

Where did this idea that "western invention in Africa has been totally futile" meme come from?

The west reaps bountiful rewards from its policies in Africa which comes in forms such as dumping surplus products onto their markets or extracting its natural resources or collecting high interest from its loan.

Posters like this seem to point towards the relative underdevelopment of Africa as 'proof' that Western intervention has been all for nought, but in reality, that underdevelopment is a direct proof of the kind of intervention that western powers practice on the continent. Just one example for instance, African industry is stunted in part because of the way that developed countries dump their own manufactured products onto the continent and use their disproportional political power to lobby those African governments from imposing protectionist policies.

Neo cortex was the best crash bandicoot villain you fucking retard

>African industry is stunted in part because of the way that developed countries dump their own manufactured products onto the continent and use their disproportional political power to lobby those African governments from imposing protectionist policies
On the other hand Africa absolutely needs western technology and in some cases even resources (if you're basically preindustrial your rare earths ain't worth shit). If they went full protectionist, which they kinda need to develop their industry, they'd be economically isolated. Do ya really wanna see how long it takes for them to develop without intervention? Because it could be a VERY long time.

Dumping is selling at below the cost of production to dissuade market development. If you look at Western corporations behavior in East Asia it's pretty obvious they don't do this.

In fact, multinationals are willing to build shit in China where they know all their practices will get espionaged, just to save on labor so stock prices get a bit higher, despite it being a long term bad decision of industrial competition and Western security, because that is how they're compensated.

>playing videogames

I used to hate living in the 21st century because I missed all of history (Pax Brittanica, Rome, World war 2 ect) but the 21st century is interesting as fuck because we are seeing States behave more like companies and companies more like states. Empires still exist, but with companies as the metropoles rather than states due to the two major powers (USA and PRC[Formerly USSR]) both being ideologically anti colonialist but economically imperialist (Neo Liberalism/ Authoritarian Capitalism).
In regards to OP neocolonialism exists but it isn't new.

Investment only works in Africa if you have nation states footing the bill and private interests collecting the rewards. On the whole it's a huge money sink, but who cares as long as the taxpayer is footing the bill? The "West" doesn't get a net benefit, just certain actors in what's basically a complicated case of taxpayer fraud.

If the interests of your company and country are supposed to be the same, like China, then it'll just be a failure. China is corrupt, no doubt about it, but this specific sort of large investment overseas will have a lot of anti-corruption supervision.

The real Neocolonialsim is immigration of the best and brightest. It's brain drain during a time when highly educated or competent individuals are worth more than a whole factory's worth of machinery of several shipments of raw resources.

The nation that loses it's best and brightest is forever doomed to stagnation and rule and guidance by less competent people, while their best go to the West.

/pol/ is right about immigration, but for the exact opposite reasons they think.

>their best go to the West

The large portion of immigrants going to Western Europe are not highly educated or the best and brightest.

Can't speak for Indian or East Asian immigrants, but the US sure as hell isn't getting the cream of the crop from Mexico and South America. Ofc most of those immigrants are illegal, can't really speak for those who come legally.

Fair enough, it's a complicated subject to get into all the individual actors from the nation-states, to the intergovernmental agencies like the IMF and finally to the multinationals and even the nonprofits who often work in tandem with quid pro quo agreements among each other to achieve what really amounts to resource extraction.

So are the French mucking about in Frenchafrique just for fun or what?

Why SHOULDN'T neo colonialism be taken seriously?

>but the 21st century is interesting as fuck because we are seeing States behave more like companies and companies more like states.

You missed the whole British East India Company and United Fruit things, huh?

That's not what full protection is though.

Here in Poland we believe we have been economically colonised by the west.

Those best send remittances.

still doesn't prove his point wrong

They do it more for political and "prestige" reasons that for economics.

Africa is simply not lucrative.

It's hard and expensive to come to the US legally, so you're likely at least middle class and educated. The universities here attract a lot of smart people internationally though.

>their best go to the West, as well as other people

This doesn't contradict what he said.

I hate that name. "Postcolonialism", "Neocolonialism".

Just call it global capitalism, or maybe world systems theory.

Poland has been the victim quite a lot of times in recent history, and now you have a victim mentality.

90% of all Poles I meet believe everything wrong in the world/Poland is because of the Soviets/RUssians/Germans/Euros whatever.

In a "shit hit the fan"/crisis scenario the best/most skilled go away from the homeland and move to a better place where they can probably accomplish their goal life standard neglected at home.
But in a slow decay scenario that skilled people get the best jobs home, so they naturally stay while the migrants are the complete opposite, the useless mob.

If you don't take neocolonialism seriously, you shouldn't take globalism any more seriously if you want to be consistent.

Doez neegas don't ni munny we put betta yus.

>while their best go to the West.

The fucking corrupt ones go to the West because they need to get their ill-gotten dong out of the country before the state clamps down any further on corruption and Western nations have become so pathetic that they would rather have chinks owning empty property than help the coming generation. I've actually come to side with the Chinese government because at least they give a slight shit about the future of their citizens.

Today I turned on my neocomputer to neopost on this neowebsite about neocolonialism so you neofaggots would have neosomething to neotalk about.

academia in a nutshell

>let's all decide to pasteurize milk at 72°C for 15 seconds
>I agree
How is this neocolonialism?

nucolonialism > neocolonialism

>For political and "prestige" reasons
And what are those reasons? It's certainly not earning them anything but contempt at home when they go tour banana republics and heap praise upon their dictators.

It's the same in Romania really.

Of course, but it's not some sinister plot. Just a consequence of capitalism. When a country's only economic activity is resource extraction and this country is very poor, heavy involvement from foreign capitalists is pretty much inevitable. The Congo and Angola broadly lack the necessary capital to develop their own industries, so Western or East Asian companies (many of whom began operating when these territories were still under full European domination) functionally reassert colonial hierarchy by dominating the local economy and, often, local politics.

This is such a dumb post because the West profited greatly, and still profits, off of African resources and labor. Sure they never managed to "civilize" the Africans but that was never a serious goal. Even still, African societies today are heavily urbanized, almost universally Christian or Muslim, and largely speak European languages.

Germans used to have the exact same victim and blaming mentality until it was brainwashed out of them post WW2.

>African societies today are heavily urbanized
It should be noted that this has been a largely post-colonial development. 1900-1957 the urbanization rate in SSA went from 11% (and Africa has had cities for centuries before) to 15%, which wasn't exactly a revolution. It was up to 37% in 2000 and it's over 50% now. Note also that the population at least tripled in most countries since independence.

>china and america are too similar
>surveillance is becoming more accepted and common
>wars in the equatorials over economic controls
>extremely ample use of misinformation and false news
>terror being used as a means to convince the masses to accept state control and perpetual war

ORWELL HELP ME

I don't get why people pretend China is somehow uniquely exploitative in African political economy. Chinese corporations aren't doing anything more insidious than what Western corporations have been doing since the moment these countries became independent.

What are you talking about lmao? Our entire electronics industry would be crippled if not for African rare earth metals. Hell, if every African country seized control of their resources and stopped selling to the first world, the economies of California, Japan, and South Korea would collapse.

You can find hundreds if not thousands of articles explaining this in greater detail than I can provide. Here's literally the first google result --

blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/02/10/guest-post-africas-role-in-addressing-chinas-dominance-of-rare-earths/

Attending university in the USA doees not mean the student is an immigrant. It means they are a student. That guys post was also about illegal immigration.

>investment

China is going to use Africa worse than the Europeans. They only build what they need to extract resources. anything else they are doing so because it can turn a profit. When Africa has nothing left to give China. They will leave it an empty husk.

You forgot the Chinese are going to actually send their people there to colonize it and outvote the natives in the elections.

>They only build what they need to extract resources
How exactly is that different than the relations between The West and Africa?

Because it doesn't do anything for the locals. The same is happening in the South Pacific. China is funding many infrastructure projects in Islander nations in order for them to from switch recognising Taiwan to China. China bring their own workers to construct them, thus providing the locals with no sustainable skillset. After they attain their geo-political/diplomatic goal, they fuck off and allow their infrastructure to fall into disrepair, as they havn't taught the locals how to upkeep it. I'm not so naive as to suggest that Western powers didn't pursue colonialism for their personal benefit, but China is a lot more self-serving in their methodology than the West

no, seriously, how is that different from muh western economic hitmen?

Westerners usually prefer to use local labour. Moreso than China, anyway.