I already explained that what you use as "Imperialism" and what davel and I have been explaining is different, and I explained that the Marxist definition is better because it can accurately explain why the US is working in the way it is and why China is not. Even if you wish to claim the Marxist definition is "Extraction" or some other term, China still isn't Imperialist by your definition, because it isn't advantageous to be!

Again, to simplify:

Davel and I are explaining that it is in China's material intetestd to mutually cooperate with the Global South because a strong Global Soutb can buy more goods from the PRC, which focuses on exporting commodities.

Similarly, the US' material interests are dominating the Global South because it focuses on exporting Capital.

You have no counter to this so far, other than you don't "trust" China because in the past, under an entirely different Mode of Production, China has been Imperialist. This is a weaker explanation than ours, because our analysis focuses on mechanics while yours focuses on ideas.

Secondly, India has pivoted towards increased mutual cooperation with the PRC and has stepped down on its claims of aggression, and turned more away from the US. That point no longer really stands.

I don't necessarily have faith in "humanity," but economic systems and material interests. China has no material reason to turn to Imperialism (or "Extraction") while the US does and has. Simple as that.