Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
It pisses me off when I see tankies advocate for a Chinese invasion. I’ve actually been to Taiwan and I’m currently planning to go back. It’s a real country and real people live there, it’s not an abstract concept. War would be devastating for them.
upvote 70 downvote

default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

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

upvote 20 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

The people of Taiwan want to be left alone, and besides they have exponentially higher quality of life than the Chinese. The PRC should probably focus on their own problems, then maybe they’ll become a country the Taiwanese would want to be a part of

upvote 9 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

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

upvote 8 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

They honestly disgust me, completely out of touch people

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w
post
upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

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

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #4 3w

this argument is one-sided yk. Like, as an American, my country has a rich history of imperialistic colonization, not taking the right to sovereignty into consideration really ever, so while I agree with it, I also am skeptical of that viewpoint unless it’s applied evenly

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 3w

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.

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 3w

The union was the capitalist side, the confederacy was explicitly anti-capitalist and made that clear. Read “Sociology for the South” by George Fitzhugh.

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

They claim to be sovereign now. If they were part of China, and are no longer a part of China, without China giving them their independence, they had to split at some point. Just because they didn’t file the paperwork doesn’t mean they didn’t secede.

upvote 8 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 3w

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.

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 3w

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.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 3w

Capitalism is just a system with private ownership of the means of production. That’s it, using your logic we are an anti-capitalist nation today because we still use slave labor.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 3w

Sounds like you need to read some Adam Smith too

upvote 1 downvote