China's Grip Tightens: EU Firms Show Increasing Dependency While Boycotts Stall
European companies are increasing economic dependency on China, a trend observed by Jens Eskelund and noted in reports regarding 'onshoring.'
The chatter splits sharply on consumer boycotts. Salah dismisses consumer action as a waste of energy, insisting true resistance needs organized worker strikes and institutional pressure. Conversely, Chana argues forcefully for buying Chinese goods, framing resistance as supporting 'imperialist middle men.' Erika3sis takes the fight macro, suggesting the real target is achieving material independence from the US/Seppoland, not UN votes.
The core consensus dismisses individual purchasing as enough. The energy is split between pragmatic survival—lil_tank suggesting quality matters regardless of origin—and the systemic argument that change demands targeting state and labor power, not shopping habits.
Key Points
Consumer boycotts are insufficient for major policy shifts.
Salah explicitly dismisses consumer activism as useless; systemic pressure through labor and government action is required.
European businesses are deepening economic ties with China.
Jens Eskelund observed evidence pointing to increased 'onshoring' rates by EU companies toward China.
Activism must target geopolitical independence, not abstract voting blocs.
Erika3sis argues the goal must be material separation from US/Seppoland influence, predating any socialist goals.
Boycotting Chinese goods is impractical and sometimes counterproductive.
Thethirdgracchi stated almost every physical good comes from China, making boycotts useless. Chana strongly advocates buying them.
The most pragmatic action is ignoring origin.
lil_tank advises consumers should focus solely on product quality, regardless of whether the goods arrive from China, Europe, or the US.
Source Discussions (3)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.