Changing material conditions to foster the development of a proletarian class is a solid theory of how to build working class power and consciousness. You might deride it as just infrastructure, but the workers who maintain and transport goods on that infrastructure (as well as the people who provide goods and services to those workers, and so on and so forth) now have more economic power and ability to organize in solidarity with each other than subsistence farmers would have against their landlords. And before anyone can build, say, a tractor factory, there must first be adequate infrastructure to supply said factory and take its finished goods to internal as well as potentially foreign markets.

Okay it’s obvious you have not read theory. Through the lens of historical materialism, aka the material conception of history developed with dialectics, we reached the conclusion that production is the chief determinant force of development, quantitative changes in production lead to qualitative changes in society.

The “mindset” from these underdeveloped countries is precisely a product of their underdevelopment, not the other way around like you imply. That is the reason we support China policies on developing global south infrastructure, because developing the productive forces (the instruments and people who carry on production) IS the way to develop society. It is not because we are blindly “chinese simps”.

Obligatory book recomendation, “Historical and dialectical materialism” by Stalin.

Who’s actually assuming China is bringing socialism by building infrastructure? It’s about building productive forces, who else is doing that? Feels pretty insulting to call is a “China simp community”