Yes, actually.



The reason people believe otherwise is because Lenin correctly observed that Britain was the world's leading exporter of capital. However this was possible ONLY because Britain was draining India, NOT by "exporting capital" to India, but by using taxes raised from Indians to finance their imports from India, which, therefore, they acquired for free, amounting to a total estimated drain of $45 trillion USD.



This "drain" then financed Britain's capital exports to Western Europe and the Anglo settler-states (USA/AUS/NZ/Canada), all of which experienced "even" development with Britain at India's expense, that is, they were not economically underdeveloped by Britain the way India was, rather their incomes grew while Indian incomes shrank, killing over 40 million in genocidal famines.



China, which is the country this person is alluding to, by "exporting capital" to African countries for example, is treating those countries economically the way Britain treated Australia and the other Anglo settler-states, NOT the way Britain treated India. How is that possibly a bad thing for those African countries, that being to allow Chinese investment? The term "imperialism" is after all referring to something bad, right?



So yes, it is ENTIRELY possible for China to become the world's largest capital exporter AND for this to perform an anti-imperialist function, insofar as it gives African and other post-colonial nations greater options to wean themselves off the patterns of trade that were historically constructed by their former colonisers, who unlike the Chinese, actually did underdevelop Africa to quote Walter Rodney.



Yes, it is a good thing that post-colonial nations no longer have ONLY the IMF World Bank cartel to borrow from when they experience balance of payments crises, that too, largely caused by capital flight (again to the capitals of their former colonisers), rather, now they can borrow from the Chinese, knowing that greater emerging competition between creditors AND their currencies will mean better deals for them.



If the word "imperialism" has any meaning today, it refers to all attempts by the former empires to maintain the patterns of trade they had violently established for their benefit at the expense of the nations they had once subjugated, nations, which by winning their independence, now have the freedom to unravel those economic chains by doing business with whoever they please, thereby WEAKENING "imperialism".



You know what's sad? The number of times I've raised these points to western Marxists who then respond by excommunicating me from Marxism (like I care), rather than determining whether what I'm saying is factual or not. Stop treating Marxism like a set of sacred texts, rather, learn truth from facts.



:)