First, we have this as a continuation of the socialist principle of supporting the independent development of underdeveloped and colonized countries. During the 'Cold War', the USSR supported various (bourgeois) republics in industrializing, essentially building the economic base for a future socialism, so there were extensive investments in public works and infrastructure projects, as well as nationalized companies, moving those countries away from dependence on the neocolonial system. The US and other imperial powers, on the other hand, preferred to spend their aid directly into the hands of capitalists and the private sector, investing in bourgeois firms and encouraging the development of private capitalism that was dependent on natural resource extraction and Western monopolies. So, in this sense, China is continuing this strategy and developing neighbors and expanding the capacity of other countries for mutual benefit, as its economy has reached certain limits of this phase of development.

Second, you have this as a sort of 'pivot' due to the advanced crises of imperialism. The continuing expansion of production in China is causing these crises to deepen, as commodities are being manufactured in greater and cheaper quantities, making it increasingly harder for monopolies to maintain high levels of profitability. Thus the imperial 'pivot to Asia' through the Pacific against China, the complaints about China "manipulating" its currency, the complaints from economic nationalists about China "stealing American production/jobs", etc. Imperialism no longer can function on the neocolonial expansion of old, due to the falling rate of profit and these deepening crises, it cannot tolerate any independence of underdeveloped bourgeois republics, even a degree of stability in its neocolonies is no longer acceptable, now permanent low-intensity war is the new norm. Imperial strategists such as Brzerzinski have inaugurated the new era of colonization with the term 'the Arc of Crisis', ie. an arc of instability through Eurasia (seen as 'inherent' to Asia by the racist imperial bourgeoisie) that allows the US-led imperial bloc to assert its superior military force to create more favorable terms for monopolies to their profits. Necessarily this means countering Russia and especially China. This also means the rise of chauvinist-nationalism and fascism as a means to organize this highly-militaristic program both at home and abroad.

So these two main thrusts have united in the necessity of China to continue peaceful development at a time of rising aggression and imperial threats, and many (underdeveloped) capitalist countries are interested in a more 'stable' path than the one the US-led imperialist camp represents. The highly-developed military strength of the US and its 'pivot to Asia' via the Pacific makes a maritime trade concept increasingly unfavorable for China, so instead of confronting the US militarily in the Pacific, China chooses to play on its strengths and conduct this trade-development arrangement across the Eurasian landmass, with many countries threatened by the spreading instability of imperial strategy and colonial warfare increasingly eager to sign up (particularly those countries that are directly threatened by the US military, ie. Russia and Iran, but also many countries that are just in proximity to this expanding style of colonial war).

One thing to keep in mind is that rising militarism and aggression is systemic, but strategically this is used to play to the strengths of the dominant US military and its partners. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey have stepped up and began to play a much more prominent role in this colonial strategy, and it is typically neocolonies (such as Ukraine or Yemen) that are taking the brunt of resistance to this policy. So this 'One Belt, One Road' is a very good side-step against imperialist militarism, encouraging peaceful development and friendly ties between governments in place of colonial division and hostility. Brilliant, really, and even manages to create confusion in the imperialist camp by offering trade benefits to even advanced capitalist countries and monopolies that choose to participate.

counterpoint:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-saudi-arabia-arms-deal-sale-arab-nato-gulf-states-a7741836.html
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201705201053811797-abu-trump-al-amriki/

tears posted:

the belt and road is now?

getfiscal posted:

all those public relations campaigns are made by the same cohort of advertising experts who like try to convince people that oil companies care about trees and building a politics around it is like cargo cult insanity. if you made the same argument to the people who even make the ads they'd probably feel embarrassed for you, like if you went to exxonmobil's head office or whatever and were like "hey i heard you guys are doing great things for green energy".

I used to think that too, but in my surreal odyssey in an elite business school everything I've seen suggests that most elites in marketing, and business in general, completely buy into their own bullshit. Whether it's a class full of future CEOs in an MBA class, 40-50 year old business elites in exec-ed, or behind closed doors in a faculty meeting (faculty at these schools double as prominent management and marketing consultants), the mask never slips--there's never the least bit of cynicism.

I don't know that it's always been this way--my hunch is that things were different in the past--but contemporary capitalists really are sincerely committed to sustainability, corporate social responsibility, etc., while at the same time ruthlessly leveraging these tools of manipulation. There are no Straussian elites standing above the ideology--the elites are the ones who believe it most deeply. I'd go so far as to say that the ability to maintain this cognitive dissonance--to drink your own koolaid while retaining the ability to function as if you didn't--is one the most highly valued traits in the managerial class.

If you really followed sustainability or CSR rhetoric to its logical conclusions, or tried to use marketing to help consumers, you'd obviously be an extremely poor capitalist, but I think there are huge benefits to being able to convince yourself that you do. Being a cynic in a world where information travels easily is a huge liability (e.g. Enron) and maintaining a lie indefinitely is psychically draining. Moreover, CEOs, marketing execs, etc. have the same emotional needs as anyone else, and believing that they're making the world a better place and enriching their customers' lives makes them happier, more effective, and more committed to the goals of capital.

The awful truth is that, if you thanked a marketing exec at Shell or w/e, they'd probably be immensely gratified and go to bed infinitely pleased with how goddamn virtuous they were.

I think you can frame contemporary business culture as a microcosm of modern liberalism writ large. Just as liberalism realizes efficiency advantages over previous, more overtly authoritarian forms of social control by internalizing and camouflaging that control within individuals at every level of society, modern business culture benefits from inculcating its ideology within every level of an organization.

aerdil posted:

they all seem happy and successful on facebook, meanwhile i'm single and unemployed so hey chalk one more up for the comfort of ignorance and not being a pretentious communist weirdo with sadbrains

Catchphrase but with donkeybrains instead of sadbrains

Aspie_Muslim_Economist_ posted:

I used to think that too, but in my surreal odyssey in an elite business school everything I've seen suggests that most elites in marketing, and business in general, completely buy into their own bulls***.

Do you mean buying into the logic "the ends justify the means" or in the misinformation itself? There have been plenty of marketing campaigns based on partial or complete fabrications and it's hard for me to believe they don't know what they're doing on some level.

The awful truth is that, if you thanked a marketing exec at Shell or w/e, they'd probably be immensely gratified and go to bed infinitely pleased with how goddamn virtuous they were.

Happy in the moment perhaps but I imagine they still wonder at times whether their actions are contributing to climate change.

It kind of reminds me of that balance corporate/government elites have to wield between promoting neoliberal propaganda and sharing accurate data about the world since they still need to be informed to make important decisions.