Workers at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) removed the Tiananmen Massacre monument late on Wednesday night, months after the university said the statue must be go. Photo: Supplied. Views of the a…
Depends on context. China will probably use nukes if it came down to what 8 Nation Alliance did to China with both Opium Wars. Look at what USA did to the world just because 2 of their towers got plane bombed.
Separatism is not exactly a good thing. KMT dictatorship certainly was not good for China. Khalistanis were not good for India. Look at USA divided into Red and Blue states. It speaks for itself. Separatism can be right or wrong depending on context of situation, varying in scope.
Morals go either way. Border lines on a map matter less than prosperity of people. When separatism leads to worse issues, it automatically becomes a worse choice. However, with individualism and selfishness, separatism looks like a good prospect.
Yeah, that is true. But with the example of capitalist world government, the funny part is capitalism is collapsing at the moment beyond recovery. It already is an irony considering capitalism is not for proletariat prosperity concerns. And Taiwan is not exactly prospering on its own, or because it has to. Taiwan’s major USP is chip making, and the moment that goes away, none of those 14 countries that show fake concerns for it in global media will stick around. It will be dumped just like Hong Kong did the moment it stopped being a “free” UK colony.
I went off a tangent there, but this stuff is just not black and white.
I think the misunderstanding comes from what the word means. Some people use it to designate the rule of someone else, as in the examples you mentioned. I personally advocate for autonomy (decentralized power) which also fits under that umbrella.
So yes, context matters. But consent matters even more so. I never consented to live under the rule of the French Empire and every day of my life i suffer due to that. The same is true with many people. In the name of what would you refuse us the right to build our own autonomous commune as is illegal by French law?
In that case you could either reason with the elected government or body over conflicting rulings or laws, or be a real revolutionary comparable to the likes of Che or Bhagat (a bit too hard), or become another KMT for your country/state. Or you can leave the country as well, or live there accepting it all as fate.
There is not much you can do unless you are more than just emotionally moved in virtual discussions anonymously.
Reasoning with those in power does not work: those from the ZAD who tried to negotiate with the State ended up betraying/destroying the ZAD (it’s now all legalized and mostly populated by hipsters and bourgeois). Going all guerilla warfare on your government is a valid strategy, but arguably modern empires have become too resilient for that to work. Mounting a legal political party for your cause seems useless: even a formally-elected government like in Catalonia will get repressed by the State for trying to separate.
Yeah there’s a lot we can do and i guess both of us are involved in various projects AFK, but still when you boil it down to personal/communal consent, Nation States are always the enemy of the people.
Limited choices and room to work with. If you can work from within the system, it is usually the most non chaotic approach. But things can get spicy if you go the revolutionary route, and sometimes that might be the only way.
What matters is the morality of whichever side being good, in the end.
I’m not morally opposed to “work from within” as long as you don’t become corrupted. I just don’t know of a single example of this strategy working to produce any significant change, but i do know many examples of people betraying their cause due to working within the system.
Depends on context. China will probably use nukes if it came down to what 8 Nation Alliance did to China with both Opium Wars. Look at what USA did to the world just because 2 of their towers got plane bombed.
Separatism is not exactly a good thing. KMT dictatorship certainly was not good for China. Khalistanis were not good for India. Look at USA divided into Red and Blue states. It speaks for itself. Separatism can be right or wrong depending on context of situation, varying in scope.
deleted by creator
Morals go either way. Border lines on a map matter less than prosperity of people. When separatism leads to worse issues, it automatically becomes a worse choice. However, with individualism and selfishness, separatism looks like a good prospect.
deleted by creator
Yeah, that is true. But with the example of capitalist world government, the funny part is capitalism is collapsing at the moment beyond recovery. It already is an irony considering capitalism is not for proletariat prosperity concerns. And Taiwan is not exactly prospering on its own, or because it has to. Taiwan’s major USP is chip making, and the moment that goes away, none of those 14 countries that show fake concerns for it in global media will stick around. It will be dumped just like Hong Kong did the moment it stopped being a “free” UK colony.
I went off a tangent there, but this stuff is just not black and white.
I think the misunderstanding comes from what the word means. Some people use it to designate the rule of someone else, as in the examples you mentioned. I personally advocate for autonomy (decentralized power) which also fits under that umbrella.
So yes, context matters. But consent matters even more so. I never consented to live under the rule of the French Empire and every day of my life i suffer due to that. The same is true with many people. In the name of what would you refuse us the right to build our own autonomous commune as is illegal by French law?
In that case you could either reason with the elected government or body over conflicting rulings or laws, or be a real revolutionary comparable to the likes of Che or Bhagat (a bit too hard), or become another KMT for your country/state. Or you can leave the country as well, or live there accepting it all as fate.
There is not much you can do unless you are more than just emotionally moved in virtual discussions anonymously.
Reasoning with those in power does not work: those from the ZAD who tried to negotiate with the State ended up betraying/destroying the ZAD (it’s now all legalized and mostly populated by hipsters and bourgeois). Going all guerilla warfare on your government is a valid strategy, but arguably modern empires have become too resilient for that to work. Mounting a legal political party for your cause seems useless: even a formally-elected government like in Catalonia will get repressed by the State for trying to separate.
Yeah there’s a lot we can do and i guess both of us are involved in various projects AFK, but still when you boil it down to personal/communal consent, Nation States are always the enemy of the people.
Limited choices and room to work with. If you can work from within the system, it is usually the most non chaotic approach. But things can get spicy if you go the revolutionary route, and sometimes that might be the only way.
What matters is the morality of whichever side being good, in the end.
I’m not morally opposed to “work from within” as long as you don’t become corrupted. I just don’t know of a single example of this strategy working to produce any significant change, but i do know many examples of people betraying their cause due to working within the system.