
If I had a dollar for every time a current day superpower split into two, with the more nationalist, capitalist side taking the South and declaring their own independence to run away from the consequences of their own actions, while still claiming to be the legitimate government of the nation despite seceding, I would have two dollars, which isn’t a lot but it’s weird that happened twice
So many internet discourses say shit like “it’s a breakaway territory of China”, as if the people of Taiwan have no capacity to decide how they want to live. They’re several generations detached from the civil war and have a fully sovereign government. You cannot advocate for anti-imperialism and deny the Taiwanese their right to sovereignty if they want it
This is valid, but yk then this would also apply to the US? Like if we want to support Taiwan on grounds of sovereignty, then the case of a US territory declaring sovereignty technically should be respected (ex: if PR or Hawaii decided they wanted to be their own sovereign nation and not part of the union, they have the right to sovereignty to decide that then) All in all, I agree regarding taiwan - if they truly don’t want to unite w china it’s not worth going to war over, but I worry that
Taiwan never seceded. The island has quite literally never been controlled by the PRC and, while the government officially calls itself the “legitimate government of China” (because the PRC has threatened an invasion if they declare independence), most of the people view themselves as Taiwanese.
Both were capitalist, but the society where you can own people is undoubtedly closer to “true” capitalism than what the north had. Fitzhugh was simply upset that white workers were treated poorly, because workers were absolutely more exploited in the system where they had no rights and were regularly beaten and raped.
Considering that capitalism is a system based on voluntary exchange and private property rights for all, slavery is undoubtedly not capitalist. Fitzhugh understood this and made it clear he was against the principles set forth by liberal philosophers like Adam Smith and John Locke.