“Warns”? that sounds ominous. I bet they are pretty butthurt about EU gaining a foothold and becoming more and more independent in multiple areas!
Good, get mad China! It only proves we’re doing a good job.
The EU proposal, formally known as the “Industrial Accelerator Act”, implicitly targets Chinese makers of batteries and electric vehicles by requiring foreign firms to partner with European firms and pass on technological know-how when setting up shop in the bloc.
Huh … I feel like there is a big country in Asia that has done this for ages … can’t remember the name though.
Good! If they complain must mean wie doing it right.
The planned measures sound very similar to what China is already doing for years?
The European measures represent even far less than what China has been doing. Non-Chinese companies can’t establish a subsidiary in China, they always need a Chinese partner that would then own the majority of the Chinese joint venture. And that’s just one among many other protectionist rules that illustrate how the Chinese Communist Party shields its domestic supply chains, including the use of forced labour.
That’s a deeply hypocritical, artificially constructed outcry by a Chinese regime that more and more depends on exports amid soft domestic demand. They are nervous.
On the one hand, I agree that China is being hypocritical. On the other hand, all businesses within a country should be owned by people who actually live and spend their lives in that country. It is one of many steps that can be taken to democratize an economy.
Yes, China wants Europe to to be Dependy upon them. Starts now becomes complete shortly later.
capitalists: competition is so good, it encourages innovation and ensures the best value for consumers!
china: competes
capitalists: 😡😡😡
china: Gives unfair bonuses to chinese companies
eu: Tries to give similar bonuses to eu companies but on a smaller scale
china: 😡😡😡
Genuine question, what unfair bonuses do you mean? Might be something I’m not aware of.
I’m not a huge China fan by any means, I just want cheaper electric cars lmao
You can check @Sepia@mander.xyzs comment here in this thread for an example.
Regarding cheap electric cars, they come at a cost:
Hungary BYD - https://www.automotiveworld.com/news/byd-faces-forced-labour-allegations-at-hungary-plant/
Brazil BYD - https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/brazilian-government-blacklists-chinese-automaker-byd-labor-violations-2026-04-07/You can check @Sepia@mander.xyzs comment
Being honest, it just sounds like western companies being upset that they don’t get to exploit cheap Chinese labor for the benefit of western capitalists.
They want to use China as a sweatshop that they profit from, rather than letting Chinese companies profit themselves.
I don’t really see the issue with it, as a consumer. I’d rather the origin of the product got to keep more of the proceeds rather than letting some western capitalist skim more off the top, especially if that means cheaper goods for consumers.
Regarding cheap electric cars, they come at a cost
Yeah… that’s just capitalism for you. Same shit happens all over, from Apple, to Foxconn, to coffee, chocolate, lithium, cobalt… could go on forever. It’s terrible and needs to be stopped, but it’s an unwinnable war when the incentives are so strong and the punishments basically non-existent.
Being honest, it just sounds like western companies being upset that they don’t get to exploit cheap Chinese labor for the benefit of western capitalists.
They want to use China as a sweatshop that they profit from, rather than letting Chinese companies profit themselves.
I don’t really see the issue with it, as a consumer. I’d rather the origin of the product got to keep more of the proceeds rather than letting some western capitalist skim more off the top, especially if that means cheaper goods for consumers.
That’s a really limiting way of seeing things. Not all companies are bad and not all of them want to EXPLOIT cheap labor just because they want to manufacture in China and there are companies (especially in Europe) that go the length of making sure that the products are made fairly (i.e Fairphone) and people are paid a livable wage. I think this will be more and more important as we go into the future and people become slowly more conscious of what they’re buying.
Back when I played Runescape, I used to pay noobs 1gp per feather then sell them again at 3gp per feather. I added nothing of value, and made 2gp profit per feather. All I did was take advantage of new players not knowing the value of feathers.
Definitionally, all profit is exploitation - because it’s the extraction of surplus value. Goods/services have some value. The people who do all of the work to create those goods and services get some cut of the proceeds of the sale, and the rest is profit - the surplus value - which ends up in the hands of the wealthy capitalists who own the means of production (i.e. the factory, hotel, whatever)
I’m not saying that the companies are bad, they’re just actors within a system doing what is in the best interests of those who own the company. It’s the system which is bad, because it’s what makes all of it possible, and rewards bad behavior.
I hope this makes some sense
Your idea that profit is simply the extraction of value from those doing the work ignores the role of risk. The factory owner provides the initial capital, buys the machines, secures supply chains, finds the right workers, organizes everything and takes the risk of bankruptcy. If the company fails, the workers lose their jobs, but the owner loses their investment. Therefore profit is the reward for taking on that financial risk and organizing the resources efficiently. Also, some of that profit will need to be reinvested into the factory or new factories.
This is not a great interpretation of the situation. China has for a while adopted a protectionist direction. China complaining about other governments going in a similar direction is hypocrisy.
Yes, China are hypocrites, but so are the ruling class. That’s my entire point. They talk a big game about free markets and how competition benefits everyone, but as soon as competition starts to threaten their class interests, they use any and all means available to shut down that competition, increasing prices for consumers to protect the ability of the ruling class to continue generating profits.
I get you, but this is not an instance of it. This is about fighting unfair competition practices. What China does is competing with EU companies in the EU while preventing EU companies from competing with Chinese companies in China.
Of course it’s an instance of it. Why should I, as a consumer, give a fuck about competition between capitalists and states?
Who cares where the corporation profiting from my car purchase is headquartered? All of that profit is going to be hoarded by some rich bastard either way.
I don’t care at all if my car is made in the EU from Chinese parts, made in China by an EU company, made in China by a Chinese company, none of that shit matters even a little bit, and it shouldn’t matter to you, either.
All I care about is how much I have to pay for the car. This policy will make my car more expensive, because the EU wants to ensure that the European car manufacturers can continue to make €€€.
That’s all this is.
If they cared about protecting jobs or ensuring strategic industries, they’d nationalize them, but no, they’re left in the hands of privately owned corporations, supported by the state, which is filled with elected representatives whose election campaigns were funded by the auto manufacturing lobby.
I don’t know how more clearly I can spell it out. It’s corporatism, pure and simple. A democracy under capitalism just means that the power of the state is auctioned to the highest bidders. That’s what the EU does, that’s what it’s for, and it has always been so.
Why should I, as a consumer, give a fuck about competition between capitalists and states?
Because it is directly affecting you. Unfair competition means chinese companies get a bigger market share globally while european companies get a smaller market share globally. That means more jobs in China, less jobs in the EU. That affects the general popuation immensely.
The hypocrisy of the EU (and western world) here also exists though: We benefited from cheap chinese labor for decades, and now that China has made it so that they benefit from it more than us, we’re deciding to put a stop to it.
All I care about is how much I have to pay for the car
That is the same shortsight that has brought us to this economic failure.
Nationalizing jobs does nothing if you can’t sell the products.
I don’t know how more clearly I can spell it out.
Start with some open-mindedness to recognize that your train of thoughts is flawed.
Because it is directly affecting you. Unfair competition means chinese companies get a bigger market share globally while european companies get a smaller market share globally. That means more jobs in China, less jobs in the EU. That affects the general popuation immensely.
And finally, we arrive at the crux of the issue. This is basically an argument that the existence of jobs is important as a fundamental principle. I do not agree with it. I believe that we shouldn’t continue to operate inefficient businesses for the benefit of capital owners just because jobs are created as a consequence.
I believe that all of the necessities for human life - food, water, education, healthcare, shelter, and so on - should be absolutely guaranteed to be provided to everyone, and eliminate the need for people to work in jobs that otherwise could be eliminated.
If you understand this perspective, you’ll hopefully understand the rest of my argument. We should just let inefficient businesses fail, and not force people to be wage slaves to have a comfortable existence.
And I agree to all of that. And I vote in alignment with these opinions.
But this is not a reality right now, and this EU change would still benefit the general population better than no change at all.
You can work towards a world where essentials are a right and work towards bettering the current system at the same time.
It’s funny seeing “leftists” fall for corporatist economics just because it isn’t western
I’m not falling for anything, I’m not pro-China, I’m just pointing out the contradiction and using it as a jumping off point to build class consciousness in the comments, but I’m really glad I added some levity to your day regardless! <3
What contradiction?
The EU demands chinese companies partner up with european companies to get european public sector funding.
China has been demanding for decades that european companies partner up with chinese companies for any access to the chinese market, be it in goods, labor or public funding.
Why is it fair if China does it and not when the EU does it?
I’m exhausted of replying to this question again and again. Just read through any of the comment chains for the answers you seek.
Your framing presents the bailey of China as a different side from the capitalists, your answers are retreating into the motte of “both are capitalists and I as a working class individual don’t care which elites profit.”
I think that might be why you get the question over and over again, because you answer to a different position than that of your initial framing.
Possibly - I did consider writing western capitalist/chinese capitalist and chose not to for brevity. It’s okay, though, it spawned some productive conversations, I think. Sorry for snapping at you, I was getting sleepy at that point too, had a nap now <3
Not the first time in the thread you claim not to be pro-China.
And yet, you continue the same anti-capitalist rhetorics to the extreme - even comparing democraticly institutioned capitalism to fascism (omfg!!!), which
must be dismantled
You ARE pro-China and you aro a pro-communist paranoid. One presumably living your happy delusional life somewhere in a democratic state. Right?
Tovarish Lenin (whom you must know or must get to know) has coined a specific term for pro-socialist lunatics in the West: useful idiots. They (the collective you) are back here… Collectively hating the capitalism (from within) and collectively hating ‘militaristic’ Israel.
That’s all sad and grim. Like, greta thunberg grim.
You can be anti-capitalist and anti-China. In my opinion, China is a state-capitalist nation. I also hate the authoritarianism and repression of China. I actually briefly dated a Chinese person but we broke up because I refused to accept that the PLA was a force for good. I’m also banned from like, a dozen communities on lemmy.ml for arguing with tankies.
even comparing democraticly institutioned capitalism to fascism (omfg!!!)
Most fascist states emerged from democracies. Both Mussolini and Hitler were democratically elected in liberal nations. Israel is a democracy.
Lenin has coined a specific term for pro-socialist lunatics in the West: useful idiots.
Lenin didn’t coin the term “useful idiot”, why would he call educated people who understand his preferred scientific theory to describe relations between the ruling class and working class as idiots? But if you don’t believe me, you can check Wikipedia:
This statement has traditionally been attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but this attribution is not supported by any evidence.
Please, open your mind a little, I promise you’ll be okay, your brain won’t fall out.
The world is nuanced and not the simple false dichotomy you want to believe in.
Lenin has been claimed to invent the very illustrative term “useful idiots in the West”. Stop looking at the finger - but notice the actual thing I was pointing at! How absolutely greta of you, once again!)
About your unsolicited advice - which I never asked… Ironically, how about you’d follow it yourself:
open your mind a little, I promise you’ll be okay, your brain won’t fall out. The world is nuanced and not the simple false dichotomy you want to believe in.
So, what do your delusions say, what kind of a state “people will get” after a capitalist democracy is “dismantled”, as you dream? Do you expect to be different from what Hitler/Lenin/hamas have attained?
All rhetorical questions though. Good bye - and enjoy still living in a capitalist democracy! “It’s the worst form of government - except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
You can’t attack me by calling me a socialist. Of course I’m a socialist. The future presents a very clear choice: socialism, or fascism. I choose socialism. You, clearly, choose fascism. I suspect that socialism will win this battle, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
Calling me akin to Greta is unbelievably complimentary. Greta is a fucking badass, widely admired across the world.
Don’t worry, no matter what, I will continue to fight for you and your best interests, because we’re both working class, and working class solidarity is everything. Much love, take care <3
You keep ignoring the Godwin law - and call others (you disagree with) fascists. This is not tolerable! It’s you who lives in a very, VERY simplified (primitivized, actually) b/w world and false dichotomy.
There is this another dude, who started calling people (he can’t stand) as neonazzi and fascists: Putin. He also claims that Ukraine is not а legitimate country. He even has “historic data” to prove it (all revanchist do)…
And thus Putin, hamas, gretas and other ‘useful idiots’ have united to self-righteously proclaim the rest - as ‘fascists’…
Wow. Grim it is.
They “compete” by paying workers $1-2/hr. That’s why all of our manufacturing was outsourced there.
I think it’s a little higher than that these days, closer to $4, but your point is well made. My point is, if the labor prices are so low, why should western capitalists benefit from them, through outsourcing, rather than us consumers and Chinese companies splitting the difference with cheaper Chinese goods?
The goal is not for “Western capitalists” to benefit, it’s for the European people to benefit, by promoting the local economy, instead of a foreign one.
If that’s true, why not nationalize such vital industries, and operate them for the exclusive benefit of the European people, rather than the benefit of the ruling class first, and the European people as a secondary effect through trickle-down economics?
Lol, why not? Go tell your local politician to do that. It’s such a good idea that they’ll listen and do it.
I do, and they are, and they’re probably going to win at the next election.
What difference does it make to a worker if they are exploited by a domestic or a foreign corporation?
The workers in Europe fought long and hard for their rights - and still do, so why should we let production of goods simply shift to those places where these ‘limitations to profits’ aka worker’s rights no longer apply? A conscious consumer should care…
why should we let production of goods simply shift
That shift has already long-since occurred. Near enough any consumer good in the west will be marked “Made in China”. The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation. I am just pointing out the contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric and meeting people where they are and trying to help them to the next rung on the ladder of class consciousness.
That shift has already long-since occurred. Near enough any consumer good in the west will be marked “Made in China”. The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
That is actually really weird. Usually countries are on a sort of wage spectrum. The poor countries will attract relatively low skill, but high work production like clothing, which requires low wages. The high income ones tend to have either dark factories for mass production or some high skill work for specialized products.
The weird part is that China does both. Usually countries when the get richer, loose the low skill low pay jobs to other countries. That has not happened in China. Part of that is probably the size of China, but still even rather large countries with a similar GDP per capita do not tend to be large low skill work countries anymore. For example Mexico and Brazil are roughly on the same level as China, but do not really export clothing.
You really would expect stuff like clothing, cheap toys, christmas decoration and so forth to come from Vietnam, India, Bangladesh and so forth. That really is not the case.
A lot of clothes do come from Bangladesh and Vietnam - but yeah, it’s more raw and intermediate products that come from low-GDP-per-capita nations these days.
This is, I think, probably quite a deliberate choice by China. I think their goal is to fundamentally capture as much international manufacturing as possible and be the factory of the world, which functionally gives them tremendous soft power over pretty much every other nation. For example, even US-manufactured munitions are made using components and materials from China, so if the US went to war with China, they could cut off the US’s supply and significantly impede their ability to manufacture munitions.
That’s just pure speculation, though. Occam’s razor would suggest they just want to do trademaxxing, which is also their official stance - though they wouldn’t put it in quite a succinct way, I suppose.
That shift has already long-since occurred.
And it was a big mistake. Why not fix a mistake?
The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
That sounds like you fundamentally oppose trade protectionism?
I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation.
How would letting heavily state-sponsored market dominance flood domestic markets and rid domestic workers of their jobs lead to abolition of profit and especially exploitation? Aren’t we already exploited by too many systemic dependencies? As became apparent during Covid, during the war against Ukraine and now, during the war against Iran?
That shift has already long-since occurred.
And it was a big mistake. Why not fix a mistake?
Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.
The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.
That sounds like you fundamentally oppose trade protectionism?
I don’t really care one way or the other - all I’m doing is pointing out the contradiction. I am an anti-capitalist, and one of the common pro-capitalist arguments are that competition benefits consumers - but here’s a case where competition is being impeded by the state to protect the interests of capital owners.
With that said, as a consumer, trade protectionism does increase the costs of goods, so that’s one reason to oppose it, but it’s not really something I advocate for - I’m far interested in advocating for far more radical changes.
How would letting heavily state-sponsored market dominance flood domestic markets and rid domestic workers of their jobs lead to abolition of profit and especially exploitation?
It wouldn’t. Again, I am not arguing for, or against, any of these protectionist policies. All I’m doing is trying to help people here gain class consciousness, by pointing out the contradictions, and how the ruling class is willing to betray the ideals of capitalism to protect their interests.
Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.
It’s either that or being driven out of business altogether. They’ll happily accept - and it already is reality, as can be seen by the plans of the EU. The only ones complaining here are China and you.
one of the common pro-capitalist arguments are that competition benefits consumers - but here’s a case where competition is being impeded by the state to protect the interests of capital owners.
This here is not a case of competition, it is a case of skewed competition through fundamental Chinese state subsidies. This reaction actually re-enables competition again by levelling the playing field.
It wouldn’t. Again, I am not arguing for, or against, any of these protectionist policies. All I’m doing is trying to help people here gain class consciousness
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You claim to want the abolition of worker exploitation, but then complain that protectionist policies will raise consumer prices. Why are those Chinese goods so cheap to begin with? Because of the very labour exploitation you say you oppose. You are demanding the perks of globalised capitalism (cheap goods) while claiming to be an anti-capitalist.
Furthermore, you are misidentifying the ‘contradiction’ here. China isn’t engaging in fair free-market competition; they are using massive state subsidies to intentionally bankrupt foreign industries. The EU pushing back isn’t a betrayal of capitalist ideals; it’s a defence against state-sponsored monopolies.
Retreating to ‘I’m just trying to build class consciousness’ doesn’t work when the economic logic you are using to build it contradicts your own stated goals. You can’t claim “the moral high ground” of protecting workers while advocating for a system that relies on dumping state-subsidised, unethically sourced goods into domestic markets.
We must learn from the best. Why are the Chinese mad that the Europeans want to try doing a little of what they’ve been doing for years?
I think if we should learn anything from China, it would be how to provision high speed rail and renewable energy.
I don’t care about capitalists in China, nor do I care about capitalists in Europe. They’re all vampires as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care where they’re born, they’re all enemies of the working class.
India could take a lot of Chineses manufactured items and sell them to EU with their trade agreement It wouldn’t be straight away, but it could give China a reason to rethink everything.
- natural resources and raw materials
- hardware/products
- energy
- software With those 4 you can do everything! China might have understood that and nowadays is key for 1. and 2… Also 2. for 3. China is first too. 4. is USA first and China second, but that can shift. EU has really strong competition and is already dependent on them, so their competition can hinder EU bei denying them access to one of those 4 key components.
