/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>464892
Because their only politics are simping for dictators and anti-Americanism. If confronted by the fact that Taiwan is a liberal democracy, they will counter that "not real democracy" while unable to point at any of their preferred factions with such qualifications, and go on about how Taiwan used to be worse, ignoring the fact that mainland China is still worse politically.

>>464892
>If socialism is anti-imperialism, why do some of you support the dismantling and reunification of a free, democratic republic such as Taiwan?

Taiwan is a bourgeois democracy so the freedom and democracy part is rather limited from the socialist point of view. The ideological promises that bourgeois systems make, tend to only be true for people who have vast sums of money.

Most anti-imperialists like the current arrangement:
<One country Two systems under the One China doctrine
That means that Taiwan is politically, militarily and economically autonomous from Beijing internally, but has to act as a Chinese province internationally. Realistically that's the best deal they are going to get. Before you take a dump on it, consider it's effectively more autonomy than Canada gets from the United states, and even more autonomy than most European countries have because Taiwan has an independent currency the TWD or (new)taiwandollar.

The US is trying to undo this arrangement because they want to turn Taiwan into a subjugated US-empire vassal-state like Japan, or worse apply the Ukrainian model. That's really going to dismantle the bits of freedom and democracy the Taiwanese can currently enjoy.

I don't see how the semi-autonomy of Taiwan can be upheld if the US backs out of the current deal, in order to try vassalizing Taiwan.

In the scenario where the US drops it's OneChina policy, it's going to be much better and safer for the Taiwanese people to become a regular Chinese province than having to serve as a US military installation whose purpose is antagonizing and encircling the Chinese. Especially for what's to come in the near future. China is a rising power and they won't tolerate US military presence right next to them for indefinitely. China is projected to grow to about 3 times the economic power than the US, and that means that even with their relatively low levels of military spending they will be able to fully establish them selves as a regional power that can push out any contenders in their region. (pic) By the way the 3x scenario, assumes the US chooses an optimal strategy of re-industrializing at home and reducing military spending abroad while maintain it's trade relations (no more sanctions war). If the US chooses to continue on it's current trajectory of late-stage empire blundering belligerency, it's going to be worse than 3X.

The Chinese are pretty chill compared to basically any other great power, they generally don't meddle in the internal affairs of other countries.
Contrast that with the US-Japan relation that was established with two nuclear warheads vaporizing 2 major Japanese population centers , and later Japan was forced to make it's economy flat-line with the Plaza accords because the US demanded it. (pic) The Chinese would not throttle Taiwan like that. Even now where the US has only limited influence in Taiwan they are already dictating that TSMC has to relocate it's chip-making factories to the US, basically siphoning off industrial capacity.

>>464906
>I'm joining a team
sentimental bullshit, it's about economic interests.

Imperialism benefits the imperial big bourgeoisie and a relatively small circle of people that are directly or indirectly involved in this. Everybody else looses out. Unless you are big-bourgeois or somebody who makes money off of this, you're just a fool.

If you look past myopic self interest, and look out for the interests of workers for example like socialists do. You'd see that the plans of the US imperialists to struggle for hegemony has only downsides. The warmongering cuts into the budget for public services, it interferes with industrial development, and the war-propaganda interferes with political expression from workers. There are no upsides.

And if you look at it as objectively as possible:
China has four times as many people as the US
China has an industrial base that is three times the size of the US's in material throughput.
China has a comparable level of technological development. (The US still has a small advantage but it's a shrinking one)

The only big advantage the US had going was that it's got a better geographic position, but that advantage is no longer a big factor because the US has antagonized Russia to such a degree that playing China and Russia against each other won't be possible for a very long time. And that means that China doesn't have to worry about Russia being a threat in the rear, and it can count on being able to reliably buy Russian resources for the foreseeable future.

The chances for the US scoring a decisive victory and defend it's status as the imperial hegemone, are remote.

>>464908
>Imperialism benefits the imperial big bourgeoisie and a relatively small circle of people that are directly or indirectly involved in this.

Divide the global GDP by the world population, and you'll see that clearly isn't the case.

That said, what Amerifats and Eurocowards have in material abundance is matched by a sort of spiritual poverty and existential faggotry.

Really, the worst part of imperialism is how it spreads its decadent, ghey culture all over the world.

>>464909
>Divide the global GDP by the world population, and you'll see that clearly isn't the case.
Technical marginally relevant criticism: GDP gross domestic product isn't a terribly useful metric, human development index HDI and purchasing power parity PPP are better metrics if still somewhat flawed.

The periphery is less developed than the imperial core, however that's not a benefit for the western workers, it's just a loss for the workers in the periphery. The imperial system is throttling the development of the periphery, and that brings imperial super-profits for the big bourgeoisie, but the majority of workers in the first world don't get anything out of this, on the contrary they loose out like effective wages going down on account of inflation from sanctions-economic-wars.

The workers in the periphery have low wages because they have to work with less productive tools in an economy that has it's development held down. For the worker in the first world that means wage-competition that pushes their earning potential down. If the countries in the periphery were allowed to develop, their wages would rise and that would reduce the wage competition for workers in the first world as well. So from the perspective of labor, anti-imperialism is a win-win, regardless where they are in the world. If imperialism reduces the first world worker will get more material wealth, and become less exploitable.

One very big mistake that you make is that you think people compare their own existence with that of the rest of the planet. The only people whose life experience leads them to think that way are big capitalists jet-setting around the world for business stuff, and maybe a few other people that have professions that involve a lot of traveling.

Most people are very narrowly interested in their own lives, and they compare their own past, present and future. If their future looks better than their past and present that will bring positive sentiments, if their future looks worse than their past and present that will bring negative sentiments. Very few people in the world compare them selves with a day-laborer from Burundi or Somalia and then feel better about their lives because their existence sucks less than that. I doubt many people are even capable of having an emotional investment in distant things. So the idea that the imperialists get some kind of emotional bonus for holding down the rest of the world and creating higher relative status stratification isn't realistic. This also works the other way around. Workers in developing countries that have freed them self's from the imperial burden, who see their future prospect improve are pleased with their situation even if they get less than a worker in the imperial core. What matters is the trajectory over time in their personal lives.

>Really, the worst part of imperialism is how it spreads culture
I too have complaints about the imperial cultural export machine, it tends to be very monotonous because everything has to adhere to a narrow line of commercialism.

>>464901
>One country Two systems under the One China doctrine
Didn't work for Hong Kong, and it's clear the Chinese don't plan to respect that. Also, I fucking called it.

>>464918
>Didn't work for Hong Kong
I guess that's correct in some ways, it didn't entirely work, the US almost managed to start a color revolution, which probably was only prevented because behind the scenes, a Chinese internal security agency went into Hong-Kong to shut down the US influence networks. Hong Kong wasn't entirely destabilized, so the system did work to some extend but it was anything but orderly and procedural governance.

>and it's clear the Chinese don't plan to respect that
To be fair to the Chinese they only reacted to a US attempt at a regime change operation.
But i hear you, governmental systems should be able to continue functioning normally even if foreign spies try to fuck with it, it has to be robust enough that it doesn't have to go into an emergency-mode, unless there is a natural disaster or a kinetic war. Citizens shouldn't be affected by spy shenanigans.

>>464911
Surprisingly decent response.

I'll simply state that I think it's clear that core worker benefit from value arbitrage inherent in the economy
– but this is strictly in a material sense. As you pointed out, there are much better ways to determine quality of life than simply the amount of commodities individuals in a population consume.

Cheers.

>>464921
>I guess that's correct in some ways, it didn't entirely work,
No. It didn't work at all because China has no intention of respecting this arrangement unless forced to do so.
>he US almost managed to start a color revolution,
People protesting because you're fucking them in the ass does not necessitate US involvement. People can tell when they're being fucked. They don't need the US to tell them that.

>>464925
But that wasn’t even the focal point of the protest. People in china protest for better conditions all the time. The only difference is that Hong Kong was begging to be under britains boot again for some weird reason

>>464923
>I'll simply state that I think it's clear that core worker benefit from value arbitrage inherent in the economy.
I don't know what "value arbitrage" means, but it sounds like something what Marxists call theories of unequal exchange.
Those theories say that workers in the core are exploiting workers in the periphery when they buy a internationally traded commodity.
There are many theoretical objections to this, but also one that's very obvious: You don't control the system from the local corner store. You're not forcing somebody else half way around the world to be subjected to terrible labor conditions because you picked the wrong box from the shelf of Pedro's local deli. If it were that easy to override the will of capitalists, they wouldn't be lording over us now.

>>464925
>No. It didn't work at all because China has no intention of respecting this arrangement unless forced to do so.
The US really did try to do a color revolution, and the Chinese reacted to that, they didn't interfere within Hong Kong based on their own initiative. So you have a situation where the US broke the arrangement first, but you are only pointing the finger at China.

On the level of abstracted international politics, you are correct, this arrangement is based on a truce between the US and China, it's not something that exists on it's own. I don't see why you would be bothered by this, Hong Kong is a tiny city state that has to import 100% of it's survival needs. Politically it has no choice but to exist as a web of diplomatic relations. I know this is a deeply unsatisfactory and flimsy base but it can be very stable and reliable.

>People protesting because you're fucking them in the ass does not necessitate US involvement.
Of course there were also genuine political protests from people with legitimate grievances, but that's what the US regime change operation tried to hijack.
Like >>464927 said there were synthetic CIA astroturfed protest of people waving the American flag and the UK flag demanding to be re-instated as a British colony. There were extremely brutal professional agitators that deliberately set people on fire, that's something that a regime change operation does when they want to destabilize a government.

>>464930
>The US really did try to do a color revolution
Prove it.

>>464934
Michael Pack (US Agency for Global Media) admitted to
<the significant role agents of the American government and official media had played in fomenting unrest in Hong Kong
For that he was grilled by the House of Foreign Affairs Committee for
<stymieing US influence operations in Hong Kong

They basically confessed to it, so don't bother with denial.

>>464934
>prove it
Lol nah go back to Reddit

>>464939
><the significant role agents of the American government and official media had played in fomenting unrest in Hong Kong
Of course, he didn't say that. You're quoting an article that never has him saying that. Good job, though.
>They basically confessed to it, so don't bother with denial.
Well, he didn't confess to that. He says protesters use US-made tools. That's as much of involvement as me using Chinese-made electronics to protest in the US. If you're going to go for media involvement, then certainly any and all Chinese-funded media in the US can also be said to be involvement. Does that mean the Chinese are the ones causing protests?

>>464942
>N-No
Yea, because you can't. It's always the same with you China simps.

>>464957
No your just willing to simp for the status quo and won’t look at things critically

>>464962
No. I just don't like dictatorships. It's not that hard to understand.

>>464968
Nice b8

>>464969
>not liking dictatorships is b8
Okay.