I think the port (and even just railways) argument is a little poor, imperialists absolutely build big and good ports so they can efficiently extract a country's resources, and use railways to connect the inland mines and what not to the ports. Basically, both China and the west have built railways in the global south, but the real difference comes from when you look at a map of the railways built: the west has always built railways nearly exclusively from inland at the locations of mining towns and towns located near other valuable resources to heighten the efficiency of their resource extraction but China builds railroads from inland city to inland city and from port to port, making internal economic development easier and easier for the country.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Yes, absolutely. Full agreement.

I have the same sentiment but here it is in my own terms. Ports are a tool of trade and can be used in favor of imperialists or against them or at least in a way that creates more independence. I do think there is a qualitative difference in associated development and loan terms here, though. Loans for ports foisted by Imperialists come with conditions that more or less convert an entire country's economy into an extraction economy with unequal exchange, e.g. petrostates, mining states, cheap exploited labor states. With China it is just the port with decent loan terms. And as you mention, associated development lines up with building productive forces within the country rather than subordinating all of production to (neo)colonial extraction.