I see this term thrown around. I swear to God, with my limited knowledge of the world, this makes no literal sense to me. I’m not trying to be snarky, but it sounds like China has too many friends and this is imperialism, but obviously this isn’t the meaning.
Social democracy or other center left ideologies are sometimes called social imperialism by their critics because they socializes the gains from imperialism. Critics of China that consider China to be participating in imperialism (especially when raising the examples of the B&R and BRICS vis a vis the IMF and World Bank) could call China Social Imperialist because they are socializing the benefits of their form of imperialism.
IMO, that criticism falls flat, because while Chinese finance capital has captured control over industrial capital and exported production overseas, a definining feature of imperialism, their financial policy is fundamentally different from the Western imperialist financial institutions’. They cancel debts, offer far more generous interest rates, and often just donates capital to improve the situation abroad like when they build hospitals and clinics for free. This is evidence that China is actually pursuing an internationalist approach of mutual prosperity rather than an imperialist approach of unequal exchange and extraction.
However, that doesn’t take away from the fact that Chinese firms operating overseas are still participating in capitalist exploitation, so the point still stands in some way.
Good answer. Thank you.